alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 300.503 Prior notice by the public agency; content of notice. ( a ) *Notice.* Written notice that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must be given to the parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before the public agency— ( 1 ) Proposes to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child; or
( 2 ) Refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child.
( b ) *Content of notice.* The notice required under paragraph (a) of this section must include— ( 1 ) A description of the action proposed or refused by the agency;
( 2 ) An explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action;
( 3 ) A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for the proposed or refused action;
( 4 ) A statement that the parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of this part and, if this notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the procedural safeguards can be obtained;
( 5 ) Sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this part;
( 6 ) A description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; and
( 7 ) A description of other factors that are relevant to the agency's proposal or refusal.
( c ) *Notice in understandable language.* ( 1 ) The notice required under paragraph (a) of this section must be— ( i ) Written in language understandable to the general public; and
( ii ) Provided in the native language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.
( 2 ) If the native language or other mode of communication of the parent is not a written language, the public agency must take steps to ensure— ( i ) That the notice is translated orally or by other means to the parent in his or her native language or other mode of communication;
( ii ) That the parent understands the content of the notice; and
( iii ) That there is written evidence that the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section have been met.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(3) and (4), 1415(c)(1), 1414(b)(1))
#### Harriet A. R. Mills v. Francis L. Leland. Ida Walmer v. George W. Roberts. William Crompton v. William H. Seaich. William A. L’Hommedieu v. Cesare Campanini. In the Matter of Parker Street.

Motions denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 680

 726

 688

 676

 648

 634

 613

 670

 689

 679

 675

 707

 678

 641

 655

 672

 633

 609

 595

 603

 627

 603

 581

 588

 581

 627

 632

 598

 571

 557

 559

 594

 564

 557

 550

 543

 540

 515

 538

 519

 518

 506

 526

 515

 515

 533

 512

 499

 502

 509

 501

 500

 530

 542

 542

 553

 550

 542

 528

 469

 439

 453

 651

 651

 633

 622

 605

 590

 578

 597

 586

 579

 571

 582

 581

 567

 583

 582

 561

 560

 550

 554

 570

 561

 562

 559

 567

 581

 571

 553

 524

 483

 516

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 7, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 418

 418

 407

 400

 390

 381

 373

 385

 378

 374

 369

 376

 375

 366

 376

 376

 363

 362

 356

 358

 368

 363

 363

 361

 366

 375

 369

 358

 340

 314

 335

TOTAL 17,830

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
### §229D. Injunctions

The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against—

(1) the conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229C of this title; or

(2) the preparation or solicitation to engage in conduct prohibited under section 229 or 229D 1 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, title II, §201(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–869.)

1 So in original.
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4785 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan 

Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4785 EH

1 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL RHONALD DAIN RAIRDAN 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in 

5 Castroville, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal 

11 Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4785 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office’’. West in Castroville, Texas, as the ‘‘Lance Cor- al Service located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90
#### § 637.41 What are the cost restrictions on design project grants?

For design project grants funds may not be used to pay more than fifty percent of the academic year salaries of faculty members involved in the project.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1067-1067c, 1067g-1067k, 1068, and 1068b)
Wyoming Governor's Office Input

Regarding Crucial Winter Range and Oil 

& Gas Suitability

This documentation was prepared August 22th 2014, by Bryan Armel. Bryan was involved in the 

exchange of map information with the state and was involved in discussions and meetings about this 

topic. He also performed the GIS analysis for the FEIS. This documentation provides an explanation of 

the areas of crucial winter range that the state indicated could be suitable for oil and gas surface 

development with timing and location constraints.

The Governor’s Office provided comments to the DEIS on what areas of the Forest should not be 

suitable for oil and gas surface development. They confined their comments to those areas that the 

Shoshone showed as suitable for Alternative B. 

The data prepared for this display was constructed in the following way.

1. The starting data was the area suitable for development from Alternative B.

2. From this was erased the area that the state indicated they did not want to be suitable. (that 

data is found in the 2013 FEIS geodatabase and is named OilGas_WyoGovNSO_stips.

3. What remains is the area that the State said could be suitable for oil and gas surface 

development with timing and location constraints.

4. This layer was intersected with crucial big game winter range to identify areas of winter range 

the state indicated would be suitable for oil and gas surface development with timing and 

location constraints. 

5. Slivers were then cleaned from the resulting layer to produce a final data set shown in the map 

below.

This data represented by this data set was used by the Forest Service in developing the area suitable for 

oil and gas surface development in Alternative G.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      9,690
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  59,041
<OTHER-SE>                               (68,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                            (2,363)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              (2,363)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
### §452a. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1163, 68 Stat. 1037, related to acquisition of non-Federal land within existing boundaries of any National Park. See section 101102 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
§ 681.15 Other charges to the borrower. ( a ) *Late charges.* If the borrower fails to pay all of a required installment payment or fails to provide written evidence that verifies eligibility for the deferment of the payment within 30 days after the payment's due date, the lender or holder will require that the borrower pay a late charge. A late charge must be equal to 5 percent of the unpaid portion of the payment due.
( b ) *Collection charges.* The lender or holder may also require that the borrower pay the holder of the note for reasonable costs incurred by the holder or its agent in collecting any installment not paid when due. These costs may include attorney's fees, court costs, telegrams, and long-distance phone calls. The holder may not charge the borrower for the normal costs associated with preparing letters and making personal and local telephone contacts with the borrower. A service agency's fee for normal servicing of a loan may not be passed on to the borrower, either directly or indirectly. No charges, other than those authorized by this section, may be passed on to the borrower, either directly or indirectly, without prior approval of the Secretary.
( c ) *Other loan making costs.* A lender may not pass on to the borrower any cost of making a HEAL loan other than the costs of the insurance premium.
(No. 73-CC-315

#### Ray E. Garlich, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 5, 1973.*

Ray E. Garlich, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7158]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 10 a.m.-11.a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

Matter To Be Considered: Briefing Matter: Toddler Beds--Final Rule.
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 22, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7158 Filed 3-23-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### § 33.25 Fees.

The party requesting a subpoena shall pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage must accompany the subpoena when served, except that if a subpoena is issued on behalf of the authority, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3804(b))
Memo of Understanding

             This Memo of  Understanding  is entered  into as of this 1st day of
December,  1999, effective for one year by and between iShopper,  Inc., a Nevada
Corporation and Lance King.

For the duties and services to be  performed by Lance King he shall  receive the
following:

Annual Salary                         $52,000
Stock Options                         200,000 Options at $1.75 per share

The option grant date is December 1, 1999 for all 200,000  options.  Options are
for a five-year period and are exercisable beyond employment.

In addition,  Lance King will be eligible for all other benefits of the Company,
including all other option  plans,  bonuses,  insurance  and any other  benefits
which employees of the Company can participate in.


  /s/ Lance King                        /s/   unreadable
-----------------------------         ------------------------------------
Lance King                            as President and CEO   iShopper.com

Date 3/22/00                          Date  12/1/99
     ----------------                      -----------------
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 15, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-14923

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-02090-CV-TCB-1

JANE M. MATTOX,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-AppellantCross Appellee,

versus

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA,

a subsidiary of the CIGNA Corporation

CIGNA),

Defendant-CounterClaimant-AppelleeCross Appellant.

AMVESCAP GROUP LONG TERM

DISABILITY PLAN, et al.,

Defendant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 15, 2010)
Before HULL, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After a thorough review of the record and having the benefit of oral

argument, we agree with the District Court that the Life Insurance Company of

North America was not arbitrary and capricious in denying long term disability

benefits to Jane Mattox. We therefore AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment in

favor of LINA on that issue.

The District Court also denied relief to LINA on its claim for reimbursement

of the amount it overpaid Mattox as a result of the award of a lump sum payment

she received as Social Security disability benefits. In doing so, the District Court

weighed the equities favoring each party, and found the scale to tip in favor of

Mattox. While LINA disagrees with the decision of the District Court, it does

agree that its cause of action on this claim is equitable in nature. In matters of

equity, the purview of the district court is broad, and ours is correspondingly

narrow. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 200, 93 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1973). We

therefore also AFFIRM the District Court’s denial of relief to LINA on its

counterclaim for reimbursement.

2
#### § 668.87 [Reserved]
### §7006. Responsibilities of the Secretary

#### (a) In general

The Secretary is responsible for carrying out the Agreement and this chapter, including the authority, to be exercised in consultation with the Secretary of State, to accept or reject, on behalf of the United States, recommendations made by the joint management committee.

#### (b) Regulations; cooperation with Canadian officials

In exercising responsibilities under this chapter, the Secretary—

(1) may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Agreement and this chapter; and

(2) with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, may cooperate with officials of the Canadian Government duly authorized to carry out the Agreement.

(Pub. L. 109–479, title VI, §607, Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3646.)
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-83782,No. 333-37782 and No. 333-112352 ) of Senetek PLC of our report dated March 7, 2005, except for Note 15d, which is as of March 24, 2005 , relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K. 

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements

 

/s/    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

 

SanFrancisco, California 

April 20, 2006
§ 463.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in this subpart? ( a ) There is no requirement that a fee-for-service be charged to employers.
( b ) No fee may be charged for services provided in § 463.435(a).
( c ) A fee may be charged for services provided under § 463.435(b) and (c). Services provided under § 463.435(c) may be provided through effective business intermediaries working in conjunction with the Local WDB and may also be provided on a fee-for-service basis or through the leveraging of economic development, philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a manner determined appropriate by the Local WDB. The Local WDB may examine the services provided compared with the assets and resources available within the local one-stop delivery system and through its partners to determine an appropriate cost structure for services, if any.
( d ) Any fees earned are recognized as program income and must be expended by the partner in accordance with the partner program's authorizing statute, implementing regulations, and Federal cost principles identified in Uniform Guidance.
#### § 304.1 Purpose.

Individuals who receive scholarship assistance from projects funded under the Special Education—Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program are required to complete a service obligation, or repay all or part of the costs of such assistance, in accordance with section 662(h) of the Act and the regulations of this part.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1462(h))
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of the undersigned herebycertifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of theUnited States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Opta Corporation (“Opta”), that,to his knowledge, the Annual Report of Opta on Form 10-K for the year endedJune 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of Opta. This written statement is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signedoriginal of this statement has been provided to Opta and will be retained byOpta and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Date: March 14, 2006 |                                                           |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                                           |
| * *             | */s/* *YAN, Vincent Yong*                                 | * * |
|                 | YAN, Vincent Yong                                              |
|                 | President, Chief Executive  Officer, Director                  |
|                 |                                                           |
| * *             | */s/* *WANG, Sean*                                        | * * |
|                 | WANG, Sean                                                     |
|                 | Interim Chief Financial  Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
|                      |                                                                |  |  |

 

1

----
437 P.2d 163

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eloy PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 113.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Jan. 12, 1968.

Leon Karelitz, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Donald W. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for ap-pellee.

OPINION

SPIESS, Chief Judge.

Upon conviction in 1963 of involuntary manslaughter defendant was given’a sentence of one to ten years in the penitentiary

*703in accordance with Chapter 49, Laws of 1939 (now repealed).

This appeal is from the denial by the district court of defendant’s motion presumably filed pursuant to Rule 93 (§ 21-1-1(93) N. M.S.A., 1953 — 1967 Supp.), to require the court to credit upon his sentence the time he allegedly spent in presentence confinement in the county jail pending trial.

Defendant bases his right to credit upon § 40A-29-25, N.M.S.A., 1953 (1967 pocket supplement), which statute is as follows:

> “A person held in official confinement on suspicion or charges of the commission of a felony shall, upon conviction of that or a lesser included offense, be given credit for the period spent in presentence confinement against any sentence finally imposed for that offense.”

This Act became effective in 1967. The sole question presented is whether the statute is applicable to the sentence which was imposed upon defendant in 1963. To so apply it would require that it be given retrospective effect. The trial court correctly refused to so interpret the statute.

Defendant takes the position that the Act being remedial should be construed retrospectively.

While the Act is remedial in nature it provides a substantive right not theretofore available. The rule of statutory construction which has uniformly been applied by the Supreme Court of New Mexico to remedial statutes other than those relating to procedure alone is expressed in Clark v. Ruidoso-Hondo Valley Hospital, 72 N.M. 9, 380 P.2d 168 (1963), as follows:

> “ * * * it is presumed that statutes will operate prospectively only, unless an intention on the part of the legislature is clearly apparent to give them retrospective effect.”

A like rule of construction was also applied in the following: Davis v. Meadors-Cherry Company, 65 N.M. 21, 331 P.2d 523 (1958); Board of Education of City of Las Vegas v. Boarman, 52 N.M. 382, 199 P.2d 998 (1948); Wilson v. N. M. Lumber & Timber Co., 42 N.M. 438, 81 P.2d 61 (1938).

We do not overlook Gray v. Armijo, 70 N. M. 245, 372 P.2d 821 (1962). The statute under consideration there concerns procedure alone.

We find no language in the Act under consideration here which indicates an intention upon the part of the legislature to give it retroactive effect. We accordingly conclude that the Act is not retroactive and that the defendant cannot avail himself of the remedy afforded by it. The order dismissing defendant’s motion is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

OMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur.