alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 5.20 Deficient applications. ( a ) *Deficient applications.* ( 1 ) If an applicant believes that its application conforms adequately to the pre-filing consultation and filing requirements of this part without containing certain required materials or information, it must explain in detail why the material or information is not being submitted and what steps were taken by the applicant to provide the material or information.
( 2 ) Within 30 days of the filing date of any application for a license under this part, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects will notify the applicant if, in the Director's judgment, the application does not conform to the prefiling consultation and filing requirements of this part, and is therefore considered deficient. An applicant having a deficient application will be afforded additional time to correct the deficiencies, not to exceed 90 days from the date of notification. Notification will be by letter or, in the case of minor deficiencies, by telephone. Any notification will specify the deficiencies to be corrected. Deficiencies must be corrected by submitting an a filing pursuant to the requirements of subpart T of part 385 of this chapter within the time specified in the notification of deficiency.
( 3 ) If the revised application is found not to conform to the prefiling consultation and filing requirements of this part, or if the revisions are not timely submitted, the revised application will be rejected. Procedures for rejected applications are specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
( b ) *Patently deficient applications.* ( 1 ) If, within 30 days of its filing date, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects determines that an application patently fails to substantially comply with the prefiling consultation and filing requirements of this part, or is for a project that is precluded by law, the application will be rejected as patently deficient with the specification of the deficiencies that render the application patently deficient.
( 2 ) If, after 30 days following its filing date, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects determines that an application patently fails to comply with the prefiling consultation and filing requirements of this part, or is for a project that is precluded by law: ( i ) The application will be rejected by order of the Commission, if the Commission determines that it is patently deficient; or
( ii ) The application will be considered deficient under paragraph (a)(2) of this Section, if the Commission determines that it is not patently deficient.
( 3 ) Any application for an original license that is rejected may be submitted if the deficiencies are corrected and if, in the case of a competing application, the resubmittal is timely. The date the rejected application is resubmitted will be considered the new filing date for purposes of determining its timeliness under § 4.36 of this chapter and the disposition of competing applications under § 4.37 of this chapter.
[Order 2002, 68 FR 51121, Aug. 25, 2003; 68 FR 61743, Oct. 30, 2003]
§ 385.2103 Appearance of former employees (Rule 2103). ( a ) No person having served as a member, officer, expert, administrative law judge, attorney, accountant, engineer, or other employee of the Commission may practice before or act as attorney, expert witness, or representative in connection with any proceeding or matter before the Commission which such person has handled, investigated, advised, or participated in the consideration of while in the service of the Commission.
( b ) No person having been so employed may within 1 year after his or her employment has ceased, practice before or act as attorney, expert witness, or representative in connection with any proceeding or matter before the Commission which was under the official responsibility of such person, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202, while in the service of the Commission.
( c ) Nothing in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section prevents a former member, officer, expert, administrative law judge, attorney, accountant, engineer, or other employee of the Commission with outstanding scientific or technological qualifications from practicing before or acting as an attorney or representative in connection with a particular matter in a scientific or technological field if the Chairman of the Commission makes a certification in writing, published in the Federal Register, that the national interest would be served by such action or representation.
ex10-12.htm


Exhibit 10.12

 

Notice of Amendment to

Restricted Stock Agreement under the

HMN Financial, Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan

 

 

Participant:___________________________

 

Number of Shares Subject to Award:______________

 

Grant Date:____________________

 

In accordance with Section 16(c) of the HMN Financial, Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of HMN Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) has amended the above referenced Restricted Stock Agreement between the Participant and the Company (the “Agreement”), effective ____________, 2016, as follows:

 

	 	
1.
	
By inserting the words “or subsection (c)” after the words “subsection (b)” in subsection (a) of Section 3; and



 

	 	
2.
	
By adding the following subsection (c) to Section 3:



 

“(c)     All outstanding Restricted Shares shall immediately vest and become Vested Shares on the date a Change in Control occurs or a Corporate Transaction of the type described in clauses (i) and (ii) of the definition of “Corporate Transaction” occurs.”

 

In all other respects, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms.

 

 

	
 
	
HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

 

 

 

By:___________________________________

Title:__________________________________
HOW ARE WE DOING?

Your opinion is important to us!

In [month], we will be distributing a link to an online survey to crisis counselors (outreach workers) and team leaders to get your feedback about [Name of Your Project].  This survey will help us to understand, from your point of view, how well our project is meeting the needs of staff and the community.

The survey is anonymous and will take only a few minutes of your time.  It is voluntary, but we encourage you to participate so we can learn how to improve the program and the services we provide. 

Again, your opinions and experiences as a staff member of [Name of Project] are important.  We appreciate the time you will take to complete this survey.

Thank you!
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6165]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 19, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 3, 2010, 75 FR 75496, Meridian Medical 
Technologies, 2555 Hermelin Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63144, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as an importer of Morphine (9300), a basic class of 
controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company manufactures a product containing morphine in the 
United States. The company exports this product to customers around the 
world, including in Europe. The company has been asked to ensure that 
its product sold to European customers meets standards established by 
the European Pharmacopeia, which is administered by the Directorate for 
the Quality of Medicines (EDQM). In order to ensure that its product 
will meet European specifications, the company seeks to import morphine 
supplied by EDQM to use as reference standards. This is the sole 
purpose for which the company will be authorized by DEA to import 
morphine.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 
registration of Meridian Medical Technologies to import the basic class 
of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with 
United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Meridian 
Medical Technologies to ensure that the company's registration is 
consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, 
the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the 
basic class of controlled substance listed.

    Dated: March 9, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-6165 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#   NSDUH 2024 Showcards

This resource is a supplement to the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) questionnaire. The document contains the showcards that field interviewers show to respondents during the in-person interview

National Survey on Drug Use and Health

### Part of Collection:

NSDUH 2024 Methodological Resource Book (MRB)

                        -  View/Download Files 
                        -  Other Related Reports 
                        -  Report Resources 

### View/Download Files

                                    - Showcards(pdf | 252.1 KB)

### Other Related Reports

NSDUH 2024 Field Interviewer Manual

Collected Date: 2024 | Published Date: February 29, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

NSDUH 2024 Questionnaire

Collected Date: 2024 | Published Date: February 29, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

NSDUH 2024 Screening Specifications

Collected Date: 2024 | Published Date: February 29, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

### Report Resources

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA)'s page about NSDUH.

 < Back to Main content
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-30722

Summary Calendar

_____________________

WILLIAM CHARLES AUTER STEVENSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TOM ED McHUGH, Etc., ET AL.,

Defendants,

BEN ODOM, Sargent; DAN LARKIN, Individually

and in their official capacities,

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(97-CV-332)

_______________________________________________________

March 18, 1999

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendants Bob Odom and Dan Larkin appeal the denial of

their motion for summary judgment. They are officers of the City

of Baton Rouge who arrested the plaintiff by authority of a duly

issued warrant. The district court denied summary judgment on
2

the ground that plaintiff had raised an issue that the officers

obtained the warrant by giving the magistrate false and

misleading information in violation of Franks v. Delaware, 98

S.Ct. 2674 (1978). Because we find no evidence that the officers

intended to mislead the magistrate, or recklessly did so, we

sustain their appeal.

The affidavit for the warrant states the nature of the knife

attack upon the victim, the knife imprint on the carpet, and that

the guilty knowledge of Stevenson was revealed by his statements

to three separate individuals.

Plaintiff faults the officers for not informing the

magistrate that no fingerprints or other physical evidence at the

crime scene implicated the plaintiff, that plaintiff made

erroneous statements to his acquaintances about the precise

location of the knife wounds, and falsely stating that the

details of the crime had not been released and were known only to

the guilty party. It was Detective Odom who signed the arrest

warrant affidavit, and no reason is given for charging Detective

Larkin with culpability. Nor do we see the justification for

charging that Odom withheld evidence that tainted the

magistrate’s decision to issue the warrant. After the

preliminary examination the judge decided that probable cause was

lacking to hold Stevenson, because testimony of witnesses at the

hearing did not fit the conclusion that Stevenson’s information

about the crime was confined to the officers and the guilty

person. With the benefit of further testimony and hindsight,
3

that was the finding of the court. Defendant Odom may have been

mistaken, but no evidence suggests that he was without reason to

state what he did when he signed the affidavit or was guilty of

anything more than a mistake about the information available to

Stevenson.

The order of the district court denying summary judgment is

reversed and judgment is rendered dismissing the action against

Ben Odom and Dan Larkin.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40080-40081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the 
Proposed Final Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas 
Leasing Program for 2012-2017

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

[[Page 40081]]

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, BOEM 
announces the availability of the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2012-
2017 Final PEIS prepared by BOEM to support the Proposed Final 5-Year 
OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Headquarters, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170; Attention: Mr. James 
F. Bennett, Chief of the Division of Environmental Assessment, 
telephone: (703) 787-1660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Final PEIS assesses the potential 
impacts of, and the scheduling for, proposed lease sales during the 
years 2012 to 2017 in six planning areas on the OCS. These areas are 
the Western, Central and Eastern Gulf of Mexico; Cook Inlet; the 
Beaufort Sea; and the Chukchi Sea. Federal regulations (40 CFR 
1502.4(b)) recommend analyzing effects of broad programs within a 
single programmatic EIS.
    EIS Availability: Persons interested in reviewing the Final PEIS 
for the Proposed Final 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-
2017, OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-030, can locate it on the Internet at 
www.boem.gov/5-year/2012-2017 or you may contact Mr. James F. Bennett 
at the address listed above to request a hard copy or a CD/ROM version. 
Please specify if you wish a CD or paper copy. If neither is specified, 
a CD containing the Final PEIS will be forwarded.
    Library Availability: The Final PEIS will also be available for 
review at libraries in states near the proposed lease sales. These 
libraries are listed at the BOEM Web site at www.boem.gov/5-Year/2012-2017/libraries or a list of libraries can be provided by contacting the 
contact person listed above.

     Dated: June 20, 2012.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-16152 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
**                                                                          Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          August 14, 2006 | By:    | /s/                  Rocco B. Commisso**Rocco                  B. Commisso**Chairman                  and Chief                  Executive Officer             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                           |
|                                                                        | By:    | /s/                  Mark E. Stephan**Mark                  E. Stephan**Executive                  Vice President and Chief                  Financial Officer |
§ 62.10 Action by the Director. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, when an appeal is from an adverse enrollment action taken by a Superintendent or tribal committee, the Director will consider the record as presented together with such additional information as may be considered pertinent. Any additional information relied upon shall be specifically identified in the decision. The Director shall make a decision on the appeal which shall be final for the Department and which shall so state in the decision. The appellant or sponsor will be notified in writing of the decision. Provided that, the Director may waive his/her authority to make a final decision and forward the appeal to the Assistant Secretary for final action.
( b ) When an appeal is from an adverse enrollment action taken by a Director, the Director shall acknowledge in writing receipt of the appeal and shall forward the appeal to the Assistant Secretary for final action together with any relevant information or records; the recommendations of the tribal committee, when applicable; and his/her recommendations.
( c ) The Director shall forward the appeal to the Assistant Secretary for final action together with any relevant information or records; the recommendations of the tribal committee, when applicable; and his/her recommendations when the adverse enrollment action which is being appealed is either: ( 1 ) The change in degree of Indian blood by a tribal committee which affects a tribal member and the tribal governing document provides for an appeal of the action to the Secretary; or
( 2 ) The change in degree of Indian blood by a Bureau official which affects an individual.
#### § 349.6 Determination.

If no formal hearing is had the matter in issue will be determined by the Commission on the basis of the facts and arguments submitted.
p100058.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 10-0058 Focus Ready Draft 12/14/2009 ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ AH PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: Respirator: Health Effects:

TLV/PEL:

CRSS : Chemical Name: S-H20: g/L @ VP: torr @ MW: %<500 %<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: Neat:

Consumer Use: SAT (concerns) (12/01/2009): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Migration to groundwater: Slow PBT rating: P3B2T2 PMN P1B1T2; Incin Pdt P3B2T2p100058.eng Health: 2-3 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 5ppb) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2A NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None provided.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 10-0058

Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: Basis:
Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note:p100058.eng

Output 2: to: from: basis:

to: from: basis: Output to: from: basis:

to: from: basis:
n Output to: from: basis:

RELEASE TOTAL

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis:p100058.eng Inhalation: Exposure to Typical: Worst Case: Number of workers (all sites) with inhalation exposure: Basis:

Exposure to Typical: Worst Case: r Number of workers (all sites) with inhalation exposure: Basis:

Dermal: Exposure to High End: Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: Basis:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 10-0058
Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: Basis:
Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note:p100058.eng medium.
Typical: Worst Case: to: from: basis: Output 2: to: from: basis:

RELEASE TOTAL

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis:
Inhalation: Exposure to Typical: Worst Case: Number of workers (all sites) with inhalation exposure: Basis:

Dermal: Exposure to High End: Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure:p100058.eng Basis:
#### § 381.304 Review of Department of Energy denial of adjustment.

(a) Except as provided in § 381.304(b), the fee established for filing a petition for review of a Department of Energy denial of an adjustment request under subpart J of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 385, subpart J (1983), is $28,900. The fee must be submitted in accordance with subpart A of this part.

(b) If the amount in controversy is below $30,000, then the fee to file a petition for review of a DOE denial of an adjustment is reduced as follows:

| | Fee |
| --- | --- |
| Amount in controversy: | |
| $0 to $9,999 | $100 |
| $10,000 to $29,999 | 600 |

(c) In order to qualify for the fees in paragraph (b) of this section, the check must be accompanied by an affidavit by the petitioner that states the amount in controversy.

[Order 395, 49 FR 35356, Sept. 7, 1984]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting § 381.304, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*