alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 479

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 479 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3752, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 479.24 Destructive device determination.

The Director shall determine in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 5845(f), whether a device is excluded from the definition of a destructive device. A person who desires to obtain a determination under that provision of law for any device which he believes is not likely to be used as a weapon shall submit a written request, in triplicate, for a ruling thereon to the Director. Each such request shall be executed under the penalties of perjury and contain a complete and accurate description of the device, the name and address of the manufacturer or importer thereof, the purpose of and use for which it is intended, and such photographs, diagrams, or drawings as may be necessary to enable the Director to make his determination. The Director may require the submission to him, of a sample of such device for examination and evaluation. If the submission of such device is impracticable, the person requesting the ruling shall so advise the Director and designate the place where the device will be available for examination and evaluation.

[36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979]
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00034

- CV
Donald Ceglar v. Christ's Harbor Church, Gary Stone, Elvin Grayson and Gary Snyder
On Appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2018

- DCL

- 3366

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENT H COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant , Donald Ceglar

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 27, 2020
#### Joseph Saitch, Respondent, v. Elmer W. Kelley, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
§ 350.1 Authorization for garnishment of benefits paid by the Board. ( a ) Annuities and accrued annuities payable under the Railroad Retirement Act, sickness and unemployment benefits payable under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, and benefits payable under any other Act administered by the Board, are subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the Board were a private person, to legal process brought for the enforcement of legal obligations to provide child support or to make alimony payments.
( b ) Lump sums, other than accrued annuities, which are payable under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, such as those payable under sections 6(b)(1) and 6(c)(1) of that Act, are not subject to legal process as defined in this subchapter. However, an individual entitled to a benefit under section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 may assign the right to receive all or any part of that benefit.
( c ) Except as authorized under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and part 295 of this chapter, no benefit paid by the Board shall be assignable or be subject to garnishment, attachment, or other legal process, nor shall the payment thereof be anticipated.
( d ) In the absence of law to the contrary, it will be assumed that “wages,” “earnings,” and analogous terms referred to in relevant provisions of state law include payments made by a private person which are analogous to those paid by the Board.
[45 FR 28314, Apr. 29, 1980, as amended at 50 FR 12242, Mar. 28, 1985; 53 FR 35807, Sept. 15, 1988]
#### Iris Hurst DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry AYRES, Geraldine Battley, James Boulanger, Nick Cicero, Donald Doucet, Don Ewing, Carl McLemore, Maurice Picard, Mix Vosburg, Juliet Williams, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-30321.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Willie James Nunnery, Nunnery Law Offices, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Peter T. Dazzio, Sr., Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Bruce MacLachlan Horack, Jr., Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, Baton Rouge, LA.

Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff Iris Hurst Davis brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against Larry Ayers and nine other individuals acting in their individual and official capacities as administrators of Pointe Coupee General *609Hospital (“PCGH”) and against the Board of Directors of PCGH, alleging that under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff was deprived of “liberty and property” without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and in violation of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana when such defendants, individually and collectively, terminated Plaintiffs employment with PCGH. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit under FRCP 12(b)(6) and the district court granted such motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appeals to this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum ruling of November 15, 2004, we affirm the final judgment entered by that court on February 11, 2005.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *609published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Keith R. Schroeder, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Orchids PaperProducts Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant ismade known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Reserved – not effective  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: March 19, 2007     Signature:  /s/ Keith R. Schroeder   Name: Keith R. Schroeder  Title: Chief Financial Officer
Order entered November ,2012

In The

Court of Appeals

 ifth istritt of gtxas at allas

NO. 05-12-00904-CR

ANDRES HERRERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-11091-R

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 10, 2012, ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant has been

removed from the country and returned to his native country; and (2) appellant has not

communicated with counsel regarding the appeal. Based on the findings, we conclude appellant

no longer desires to pursue the appeal.

ORDER the appeal submitted, without briefs and argument, as of the date of this

order, to a panel consisting of Justices Richter, Lang-Miers, and Myers. See Tex. R. App. P.
38.80 ).

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 0 0 0

10 0 0 0

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

15 0 0 0

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 0 0

19 0 0 0

20 0 0 0

21 0 0 0

22 0 0 0

23 0 0 0

24 0 0 0

25 0 0 0

26 0 0 0

27 0 0 0

28 0 0 0

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Pittsburg Bottom On The Sacramento River

Period: February 2023 Run Date: 11/27/2023
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

DAY HIGH

 11,567

 10,653

 10,228

 12,116

 8,983

 8,763

 8,614

 7,832

 11,428

 10,166

 10,308

 19,987

 17,829

 13,743

 13,077

 11,457

 9,765

 9,757

 9,439

 8,709

 10,287

 4,472

 3,867

 5,102

 6,367

 5,787

 4,706

 5,764

 4,450

 2,444

 2,832

 2,313

 1,665

 1,674

 2,958

 1,025

 910

 799

 1,386

 2,621

 4,064

 6,550

 6,046

 4,773

 4,068

 3,017

 1,675

 1,024

 898

 778

 822

 2,484

 495

 501

 443

 373

 482

 380

 293

 257

 6,830

 6,176

 5,378

 5,662

 5,239

 4,639

 4,168

 4,266

 5,933

 7,138

 7,714

 11,243

 11,479

 9,641

 9,019

 7,049

 5,874

 4,557

 3,837

 3,838

 4,171

 3,225

 1,650

 2,967

 3,232

 2,366

 2,088

 2,136

 1,199

 568

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 8, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
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

 23,739

 24,384

 24,285

 22,483

 24,886

 23,883

 22,621

 21,963

 21,686

 21,506

 22,322

 23,388

 24,651

 25,326

 23,315

 22,704

 24,427

 23,976

 24,090

 21,967

 22,064

 19,842

 19,496

 20,361

 20,801

 22,623

 23,606

 24,336

 25,332

 25,923

 26,885

 12,050

 11,539

 10,326

 8,005

 8,044

 10,114

 9,987

 10,263

 11,083

 11,751

 12,258

 12,856

 13,275

 13,444

 13,203

 12,112

 11,672

 11,646

 12,049

 11,990

 11,433

 10,658

 10,962

 11,300

 12,277

 12,870

 13,127

 13,513

 13,935

 13,677

 13,630

 17,475

 17,683

 17,849

 15,992

 16,486

 17,479

 16,813

 16,584

 17,225

 17,235

 17,193

 17,414

 18,370

 19,047

 18,404

 17,699

 17,315

 17,379

 17,887

 17,830

 16,552

 15,867

 16,112

 16,404

 16,296

 16,647

 16,749

 16,921

 17,919

 18,811

 19,660

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
#### The City of New York, Respondent, *v.*Lucius H. Beers, Trustee of the Estate of Robert Stewart, Appellant.

First Department,

July 10, 1914.

Tax on personal property — residence.

Where in an action to collect a tax for 1911, assessed by the city of Hew York upon personal property against the trustee of an estate, it appears that since 1904 the trustee has lived in Suffolk county from May until Hovember of each year and has moved with his family to Hew York city during the remainder of the season, and that since 1903 he has voted in Suffolk county at both State and local elections, and that for the past ten years he has been assessed for personal taxes in such county, the complaint should be dismissed.

Appeal by the defendant, Lucius H. Beers, as trustee, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 26th day of January, 1914, upon the decision of the court after a trial before the court without a jury.

*Franklin B. Lord,*for the appellant.

*William H. King,*for the respondent.

Hotchkiss, J.:

Defendant claims to have been a resident of Westhampton since July, 1910. It appears that since 1904 he has lived at Westhampton from May until November in each year. In November it is his custom to move with his family to New York city where he rents a house for the season. Since 1903 he has voted at Westhampton at both State and local elections, and he is and for the last ten years past has been assessed for personal taxes in the town of Southhampton which includes the village of Westhampton. In certain judicial proceedings to which he was a party he has, within the period last referred to, treated Suffolk as the county of his legal domicile. In 1901 the defendant obtained a writ of certiorari to review his personal assessment in this city for the year 1901. The writ was dismissed, the court holding on the record before it that the defendant was a resident of this city and liable to taxation here. It appeared in the certiorari proceedings that defendant’s course of life with respect to his several domiciles in West*496hampton and New York city and the period of his use of each was practically the same as appears upon the record before us. It further appeared, however, that the defendant had voted in the city of New York at the election in 1900, and on this ground defendant was held to have elected to consider this city as his place of residence and so was liable to he assessed here. *(People ex rel. Beers*v. *Feitner,*40 Misc. Rep. 368.)

I think that inasmuch as defendant has since the period involved in the certiorari proceedings elected to adopt Westhampton as his voting place, and has by other acts shown an unequivocal intention to adopt Westhampton as his legal residence, these facts must he accepted as determinative of his intent and that the judgment should he reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Ingraham, P. J., Latjghlin, Clarke and Dowling, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Order to he settled on notice.
### §3366. Bill of particulars—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Bill of particulars for cause; motion after arraignment; time; amendment, Rule 7(f).

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 830.)
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

DAY ELEV

 3,471.06

 3,471.06

 3,471.02

 3,471.01

 3,471.01

 3,471.00

 3,471.00

 3,471.02

 3,471.02

 3,471.02

 3,471.02

 3,471.02

 3,471.02

 3,471.00

 3,470.99

 3,470.93

 3,470.86

 3,470.80

 3,470.74

 3,470.67

 3,470.62

 3,470.56

 3,470.44

 3,470.37

 3,470.31

 3,470.24

 3,470.12

 3,470.06

 3,469.95

 3,469.82

 41,072

 41,072

 41,046

 41,039

 41,039

 41,033

 41,033

 41,046

 41,046

 41,046

 41,046

 41,046

 41,046

 41,033

 41,027

 40,988

 40,943

 40,904

 40,866

 40,821

 40,789

 40,750

 40,673

 40,628

 40,589

 40,544

 40,467

 40,429

 40,358

 40,275

STORAGE

+0

+0

-26

-7

+0

-6

+0

+13

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

-13

-6

-39

-45

-39

-38

-45

-32

-39

-77

-45

-39

-45

-77

-38

-71

-83

CHANGE

31.4

28.0

15.3

29.3

31.4

32.1

28.6

37.4

24.0

16.3

19.1

19.9

27.7

23.1

38.6

25.6

23.7

30.0

23.9

17.0

23.0

25.0

7.3

25.3

28.9

23.1

4.0

30.6

16.6

11.1

INFLOW

 24

 21

 24

 27

 28

 30

 25

 26

 23

 13

 15

 16

 24

 25

 37

 39

 41

 44

 38

 35

 35

 39

 40

 43

 43

 41

 38

 44

 47

 47

CONDUIT

 2.3

 2.3

 .1

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .1

 .1

 .1

 .1

 .1

 .1

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

SPILL

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

PK CR

 4.4

 4.0

 3.4

 4.8

 2.4

 4.1

 2.6

 3.8

 0.0

 2.3

 3.1

 2.9

 2.7

 3.7

 3.6

 5.3

 4.4

 4.7

 4.1

 3.7

 3.1

 4.7

 5.1

 4.0

 4.6

 3.8

 3.8

 4.8

 4.4

 4.9

C.F.S.

 .212

 .192

 .162

 .227

 .113

 .197

 .126

 .180

 .000

 .108

 .150

 .137

 .129

 .178

 .171

 .254

 .212

 .223

 .194

 .176

 .150

 .226

 .242

 .194

 .223

 .183

 .182

 .233

 .210

 .235

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .78

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2000 JENKINSON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 07/07/2000

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -797 717.3 972 30.0 5.3 113.2 5.419 .79

ACRE-FEET -797 1,422.8 1,928 59.5 10.5 224.5

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CAMINO-CONDUIT 1,928.0

SLY PARK CREEK

SPILL

 59.5

 10.5

 642.7

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 1999 TO DATE = 54.07

 41,072

 1,285.3 0.79

CAMINO SLY

CAMP

CREEK

C.F.S.

 37

 34

 32

 31

 28

 26

 22

 34

 26

 23

 23

 24

 22

 16

 15

 18

 18

 16

 16

 15

 15

 14

 13

 13

 13

 12

 12

 12

 11

 11

 602

 1,194

E.I.D. PROJECT

E.I.D. WATER RIGHTS
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
### **CHAPTER 33—MUTUAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM**

Sec.
2451.
Congressional statement of purpose.
2451a.
Repealed.
2452.
Authorization of activities.
2452a.
Exchange program with countries in transition from totalitarianism to democracy.
2452b.
International expositions.
2452c.
Program to provide grants to American-sponsored schools in predominantly Muslim countries to provide scholarships.
2453.
Agreements with foreign governments and international organizations.
2454.
Administration.
2455.
Appropriations.
2456.
J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board.
2457.
Reports by Board.
2458.
Authority of President.
2458a.
Federal employee participation in cultural exchange programs.
2459.
Immunity from seizure under judicial process of cultural objects imported for temporary exhibition or display.
2460.
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
2461.
Exchanges between United States and independent states of the former Soviet Union.
2462.
Establishment of grant program for foreign study by American college students of limited financial means.
2463.
Allocation of funds transferred to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
2464.
Ethical issues in international health research.
2465.
John Lewis Civil Rights Fellowship Program.
February 2022

STORAGE INFLOW- C.F.S. RELEASE - C.F.S. GAINS(+)

ACRE-FEET O'NEILL S.LUIS CALIF. O'NEILL

S.LUIS DOS AMIGOS * OR LOSS

(-)

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE PUMPING GEN. AQUEDUCT GEN. PUMPING PUMPING DELIV. C.F.S.

47,703

1 220.59 44,688 -3,015 537 0 442 0 1,587 685 -228

2 220.97 45,682 994 458 0 103 0 0 52 -7

3 221.17 46,206 524 1,274 0 997 0 1,063 841 -102

4 221.04 45,865 -341 1,392 0 0 0 1,502 216 155

5 220.50 44,453 -1,412 1,341 0 120 0 1,500 503 -169

6 221.80 47,861 3,408 1,326 0 770 0 707 0 329

7 221.87 48,045 184 1,241 0 823 0 1,587 366 -19

8 222.11 48,677 632 965 0 914 0 1,587 0 26

9 220.92 45,551 -3,126 968 0 78 0 1,584 859 -179

10 219.96 43,048 -2,503 887 0 0 0 1,497 744 92

11 220.64 44,818 1,770 679 1,199 82 0 0 956 -111

12 221.48 47,020 2,202 662 0 779 0 0 502 170

13 222.44 49,554 2,534 767 0 1,350 0 794 210 164

14 222.90 50,779 1,225 679 0 721 0 794 0 11

15 222.57 49,900 -879 368 0 322 0 732 408 7

16 221.37 46,731 -3,169 344 0 9 0 1,508 343 -99

17 221.42 46,863 132 373 0 238 0 0 597 52

18 221.45 46,941 78 283 0 0 52 0 401 210

19 221.37 46,731 -210 496 0 75 119 0 505 -51

20 221.71 47,625 894 580 0 38 167 0 0 1

21 221.08 45,970 -1,655 6 0 0 595 0 385 141

22 221.11 46,049 79 0 1,202 0 511 0 640 -11

23 220.54 44,557 -1,492 0 900 54 860 0 862 16

24 219.66 42,273 -2,284 0 1,508 41 1,224 0 1,249 -228

25 220.45 44,322 2,049 0 3,002 83 991 0 1,101 40

26 221.82 47,914 3,592 0 2,393 0 508 0 416 342

27 222.89 50,753 2,839 0 1,785 86 571 0 0 131

28 222.35 49,314 -1,439 0 1,187 0 356 992 550 -15

TOTALS 1,611 15,626 13,176 8,125 5,954 17,434 13,391 668

ACRE-FEET 1,611 30,994 26,137 16,113 11,810 34,577 26,565 259 1,319

* DAILY DEL. FIGURES UNAVAILABLE. TOT. DEL. IS INCLUDED IN COMPUTING MONTHLY TOTALS

SUMMARY

Release (ACRE-FEET)

O'Neill Generation 11,810 Dos Amigos Pump 26,565

San Luis Pump 34,577 Deliveries 259

Total 73211

Historical Archive and Report Database

Consolidated State-Federal O'Neill Forebay 

Daily Operations

Run Date: 1/3/2024
#### § 340.11 Waiver of methods of recovery.

The Board may waive any right to recover all or any part of an amount recoverable by any one or more methods without waiving the right to recover by some other method or methods if, in the judgment of the Board, the individual is without fault and if, in the judgment of the Board, recovery by the methods waived would be against equity and good conscience and recovery by such other methods would not be against equity and good conscience.