alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 207.6 Control over approved refugee numbers.

Current numerical accounting of approved refugees is maintained for each special group designated by the President. As refugee status is authorized for each applicant, the total count is reduced correspondingly from the appropriate group so that information is readily available to indicate how many refugee numbers remain available for issuance.
#### John E. McCarthy, as Sole Surviving Executor, etc., of Pierce J. McCarthy, Deceased, Appellant, v. John F. Crosson, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
(No. 76-CC-1821

#### Walter York, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed October 21, 1981.*

Thomas Bielinski, for Claimant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Glen P. Larner, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Poch, J.

This case comes to be heard upon a joint stipulation entered into by the parties. According to the agreed-upon facts, this claim arose as follows:

On May 7, 1974, Claimant was an inmate at Joliet Correctional Center where he worked as a cook in the residents’ kitchen. As a cook, one of his responsibilities was the operation of the stove, including the lighting of *68the oven. On the aforementioned date, Claimant was attempting to light the oven when it exploded in his face, apparently as a result of gas leakage. The explosion caused him to suffer burns about his face and body, for which he seeks recovery of damages.

Respondent has conceded that it was negligent in failing to maintain the oven in a safe condition, and that its negligence was the sole and proximate cause of Claimant’s injuries. It is further conceded that Claimant was acting with due care for his own safety.

Both parties agree that Claimant’s damages equal $1,500.00 and that an award in that amount would constitute full and final satisfaction of this claim.

Although the Court is not bound by a joint stipulation such as this, we hesitate to interpose a controversy between the parties where none appears to exist. In this case, the stipulated facts are sufficient to warrant a finding of negligence on Respondent’s part and liability for Claimant’s injuries. As for the agreed-upon award, we see nothing to indicate that this amount was not determined by a thorough consideration of all the elements of damages relating to this case. We therefore accept the stipulation in its entirety, including the suggested award.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred dollars and no cents) as full and final satisfaction for the instant claim.
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

**TIME AND DATE:** Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

**PLACE:** The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission’s headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.

**STATUS:** This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via audio webcast only on the Commission’s website at www.sec.gov.

**MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:** The subject matter of the open meeting will be the Commission’s broader efforts to (1) modernize and improve the Commission’s disclosure framework in light of the changes in our capital markets and domestic and global economy, and (2) simplify, harmonize, and improve the exempt offering framework under the Securities Act to promote capital formation and expand investment opportunities while maintaining and enhancing appropriate investor protections.  The specific matters to be considered are:

- whether to adopt amendments to modernize the description of business, legal proceedings, and risk factor disclosures that registrants are required to make pursuant to Regulation S-K. These disclosure items, which have not undergone significant revisions in over 30 years, would be updated to account for developments since the rules’ adoption or last revision, to improve disclosure for investors, and to simplify compliance for registrants.  Specifically, the amendments are intended to improve the readability of disclosure documents, as well as discourage repetition and the disclosure of information that is not material.
- whether to adopt amendments to the definition of “accredited investor” in Commission rules and the definition of “qualified institutional buyer” in Rule 144A under the Securities Act to update and improve the definition to identify more effectively investors that have sufficient financial sophistication to participate in certain private investment opportunities.  The amendments are the product of years of efforts by the Commission and its staff to consider and analyze possible approaches to revising the accredited investor definition. 

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:** For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Secretary, at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: August 19, 2020

Eduardo A. AlemanDeputy Secretary
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6968]

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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[GSA Bulletin FTR 11-05; 2011-0002; Sequence 2]

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances--
Relocation Income Tax Allowance (RITA) Tables

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of a bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform agencies of FTR 
Bulletin 11-05, which provides the annual changes to the RIT allowance 
tables necessary for calculating the amount of a transferee's increased 
tax burden due to an employee's official permanent change of station is 
now available. FTR Bulletin 11-05 and all other FTR Bulletins can be 
found at http://www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletin. The RIT allowance tables are 
located at http://www.gsa.gov/relocationpolicy.

DATES: This notice is effective March 24, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ed Davis, Office of Governmentwide 
Policy (M), Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management 
(MT), General Services Administration at (202) 208-7638 or via e-mail 
at [email protected]. Please cite FTR Bulletin 11-05.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 2008 the General Services 
Administration (GSA) published FTR Amendment 2008-04 in the Federal 
Register (73 FR 35952) specifying that the General Services 
Administration (GSA) would no longer publish the RITA tables found in 
41 CFR part 301-17 Appendices A through D. The tables will be published 
at http://www.gsa.gov/relocationpolicy.

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
Janet Dobbs,
Director, Office of Travel, Transportation & Asset Mgmt.
[FR Doc. 2011-6968 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
```
§ 101.105 Oral argument to the reviewing authority. ( a ) If any party desires to argue a case orally on exceptions or replies to exceptions to an initial or recommended decision, he shall make such request in writing. The reviewing authority may grant or deny such requests in its discretion. If granted, it will serve notice of oral argument on all parties. The notice will set forth the order of presentation, the amount of time allotted, and the time and place for argument. The names of persons who will argue should be filed with the Department hearing clerk not later than 7 days before the date set for oral argument.
( b ) The purpose of oral argument is to emphasize and clarify the written argument in the briefs. Reading at length from the brief or other texts is not favored. Participants should confine their arguments to points of controlling importance and to points upon which exceptions have been filed. Consolidations of appearances at oral argument by parties taking the same side will permit the parties' interests to be presented more effectively in the time allotted.
( c ) Pamphlets, charts, and other written material may be presented at oral argument only if such material is limited to facts already in the record and is served on all parties and filed with the Department hearing clerk at least 7 days before the argument.
Appendix A 

Arizona Emissions by County 
(page intentionally blank) 
Appendix A 

Arizona Emissions by County

The figures in this appendix provide a breakdown of Arizona emissions by county. The pollutants 

include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine soil, coarse mass, 

ammonia, and volatile organic carbon. 

Figure 1: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by County within Arizona 

Appendix A – Arizona Regional Haze SIP 

Page 1 of 5 
Figure 2: Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by County within Arizona 

Figure 3: Organic Carbon Emissions by County within Arizona 

Appendix A – Arizona Regional Haze SIP 

Page 2 of 5 
Figure 4: Elemental Carbon Emissions by County within Arizona 

Figure 5: Coarse Mass Emissions by County within Arizona 

Appendix A – Arizona Regional Haze SIP 

Page 3 of 5 
Figure 6: Fine Particulate Emissions by County within Arizona 

Figure 7: Ammonia Emissions by County within Arizona 

Appendix A – Arizona Regional Haze SIP 

Page 4 of 5 
Figure 6: Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions by County within Arizona 

Figure 7: Carbon Monoxide Emissions by County within Arizona 

Appendix A – Arizona Regional Haze SIP 

Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the companys financial condition and results of operations.

May 12, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Gordon                     
|Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer
Even healthy people can get the flu, and it can be serious. 

Everyone 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine.

Help protect Alaska from the flu.

Get vaccinated.

Your flu vaccine protects me. 

My flu vaccine protects you.

CS212299-T

Lifeis

 a delicate

 balance.

For more information, visit 

http://www.flu.gov
### §695k. Congressional declaration of policy for preservation of habitat for migratory waterfowl and prevention of depredations on agricultural crops

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to stabilize the ownership of the land in the Klamath Federal reclamation project, Oregon and California, as well as the administration and management of the Klamath Federal reclamation project and the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, and Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, to preserve intact the necessary existing habitat for migratory waterfowl in this vital area of the Pacific flyway, and to prevent depredations of migratory waterfowl on agricultural crops in the Pacific Coast States.

(Pub. L. 88–567, §1, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 850.)
#### Rosse M. MCLEOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George W. HATTAWAY, Commissioner of the Department of Children Services; Angie Evans, Department of Social Services; Jimmy Kimble, Department of Social Services, Defedants-Appellees.

No. 01-5444.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 3, 2002.

*201Before GUY and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; WALTER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

Rosse M. McLeod, a pro se Colorado prisoner, appeals a district court order denying her motion requesting the district court to amend its judgment or make additional findings of fact under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking monetary and injunctive relief, McLeod sued the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, its commissioner, and members of the Tennessee Department of Social Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McLeod’s complaint was based on the placement of her children in foster care and her inability to visit them. The district court dismissed the complaint on January 22, 2001. On February 12, 2001, McLeod filed her Rule 52(b) motion. The district court denied the motion as untimely as it was not filed within the ten day period provided for by the rule. It is from this order that McLeod appeals.

In her timely appeal, McLeod argues that the district court’s decision ignores her constitutionally protected relationship that she has with her children. She continues to object to the foster care which her children are receiving.

The district court’s denial of McLeod’s Rule 52(b) motion is reviewed for plain error. *See Finch v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,*820 F.2d 1426, 1432 (6th Cir.1987). To conclude that plain error occurred, first the court “must determine whether there was error under current law.... Second, the error must be ‘plain.’... Third, the defendant must prove that the error ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” *See United States v. Rogers,*118 F.3d 466, 471-72 (6th Cir.1997). To meet the third prong of the test, “the error must have been prejudicial. It must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

The district court did not commit plain error. Rule 52(b) requires that a motion *202to amend must be filed within ten days of the entry of the judgment. It is undisputed that McLeod’s motion was filed well beyond the ten days prescribed for by Rule 52(b). As McLeod’s motion was untimely, the district court’s decision was not erroneous.

Finally, it is noted that McLeod argues the merits of her underlying complaint. However, her notice of appeal is untimely as to the district court’s underlying judgment. Thus, the merits of McLeod’s complaint are not before the court.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
### §823g. Considerations for relicensing terms

#### (a) In general

In determining the term of a new license issued when an existing license under this subchapter expires, the Commission shall take into consideration, among other things—

(1) project-related investments by the licensee under the new license; and

(2) project-related investments by the licensee over the term of the existing license.

#### (b) Equal weight

The determination of the Commission under subsection (a) shall give equal weight to—

(1) investments by the licensee to implement the new license under this subchapter, including investments relating to redevelopment, new construction, new capacity, efficiency, modernization, rehabilitation or replacement of major equipment, safety improvements, or environmental, recreation, or other protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures required or authorized by the new license; and

(2) investments by the licensee over the term of the existing license (including any terms under annual licenses) that—

(A) resulted in redevelopment, new construction, new capacity, efficiency, modernization, rehabilitation or replacement of major equipment, safety improvements, or environmental, recreation, or other protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures conducted over the term of the existing license; and

(B) were not expressly considered by the Commission as contributing to the length of the existing license term in any order establishing or extending the existing license term.

#### (c) Commission determination

At the request of the licensee, the Commission shall make a determination as to whether any planned, ongoing, or completed investment meets the criteria under subsection (b)(2). Any determination under this subsection shall be issued within 60 days following receipt of the licensee's request. When issuing its determination under this subsection, the Commission shall not assess the incremental number of years that the investment may add to the new license term. All such assessment shall occur only as provided in subsection (a).

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. I, §36, as added Pub. L. 115–270, title III, §3005, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3867.)
§ 216.3 Termination of conditional resident status. ( a ) *During the two-year conditional period.* The director shall send a formal written notice to the conditional permanent resident of the termination of the alien's conditional permanent resident status if the director determines that any of the conditions set forth in section 216(b)(1) or 216A(b)(1) of the Act, whichever is applicable, are true, or it becomes known to the government that an alien entrepreneur who was admitted pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Act obtained his or her investment capital through other than legal means (such as through the sale of illegal drugs). If the Service issues a notice of intent to terminate an alien's conditional resident status, the director shall not adjudicate Form I-751 or Form I-829 until it has been determined that the alien's status will not be terminated. During this time, the alien shall continue to be a lawful conditional permanent resident with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities provided to persons possessing such status. Prior to issuing the notice of termination, the director shall provide the alien with an opportunity to review and rebut the evidence upon which the decision is to be based, in accordance with § 103.2(b)(2) of this chapter. The termination of status, and all of the rights and privileges concomitant thereto (including authorization to accept or continue in employment in this country), shall take effect as of the date of such determination by the director, although the alien may request a review of such determination in removal proceedings. In addition to the notice of termination, the director shall issue a notice to appear in accordance with 8 CFR part 239. During the ensuing removal proceedings, the alien may submit evidence to rebut the determination of the director. The burden of proof shall be on the Service to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more of the conditions in section 216(b)(1) or 216A(b)(1) of the Act, whichever is applicable, are true, or that an alien entrepreneur who was admitted pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Act obtained his or her investment capital through other than legal means (such as through the sale of illegal drugs).
( b ) *Determination of fraud after two years.* If, subsequent to the removal of the conditional basis of an alien's permanent resident status, the director determines that an alien spouse obtained permanent resident status through a marriage which was entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws or an alien entrepreneur obtained permanent resident status through a commercial enterprise which was improper under section 216A(b)(1) of the Act, the director may institute rescission proceedings pursuant to section 246 of the Act (if otherwise appropriate) or removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act.
[62 FR 10349, Mar. 6, 1997]
### §730. Violations of law or regulations; punishment

Any person who shall violate or fail to comply with any provision of or any regulation made pursuant to this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(June 7, 1924, ch. 346, §11, 43 Stat. 652.)
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23-A. CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Hercules Incorporated on Form S-8 [Registration No. 33-37279 (which includes
Registration No. 33-21668), No. 33-14912, No. 33-15052, No. 33-21667, No.
33-47664, No. 33-51178, No. 33-52621, No. 33-66136, No. 33-62314, No. 33-65352,
No. 333-38795, and No. 333-38797] and on Form S-3 (Registration No.333-63423) of
our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph regarding a change, in 1997,
in the company's method of accounting for costs incurred in connection with an
enterprise software installation, dated February 19, 1999, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Hercules
Incorporated and subsidiary companies as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 1999