alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 420.21 Procedure for designating areas for off-road vehicle use. The Regional Director shall, to the extent practicable, hold public hearings to obtain interested user groups, local populace, and affected Federal, State, and county agencies' opinions for opening or closing an area or trail in a manner that provides an opportunity for the public to express themselves and have their views taken into account. The Regional Director may act independently if he/she deems emergency action to open or close or restrict areas and trails is necessary to attain the objectives of the regulations of this part. ( a ) Regional Directors shall designate and publicize those areas and trails which are open to off-road vehicle use in accordance with § 420.23.
( b ) Before any area or trail is opened to off-road vehicle use, the Regional Director will establish specific regulations which are consistent with the criteria in these regulations.
( c ) The Regional Director will inspect designated areas and trails periodically to determine conditions resulting from off-road vehicle use. If he determines that the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails of the public lands, he shall immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicle causing such effects. No area or trail shall be reopened until the Regional Director determines that adverse effects have been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence. The public shall be notified of restrictions or closure in accordance with § 420.23.
[39 FR 26893, July 24, 1974, as amended at 44 FR 34909, June 15, 1979]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
P laintiff

- Appell ee

v.
TERESITA ARRAMBIDE , Defendant

- Appell ant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:18

- CV

- 618

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Teresita Arrambide , federal prisoner # 21145

- 479, was convicted of conspiring to commit money laundering, and she was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment. Without holding the evidentiary hearing that Arrambide requested, the district court denied her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 mo tion on the merits. Arrambide now requests a certificate of appealability (COA). To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) ; see Slack v. McDaniel ,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 28, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50154 Document: 00515325808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2020No. 19

- 50154

2 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2 000). Arrambide argues that t rial counsel gave her bad sentencing advice, inducing her guilty plea with an incorrect estimation of her likely sentence , and that t rial counsel should have sought a reduction in her offense level because she played only a mi nor role in the offense. Arrambide has not made the required showing to obtain a COA on these claims. See Slack , 529 U.S. at 484. We do not consider her arguments, raised for the first time in her COA brief, that counsel should have moved for a downward departure based on her cultural assimilation under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 and under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 because she has two minor children in her care. See Black v. Davis , 902 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied , No. 18

- 9645, 2020 WL 129541 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2020)

. Arrambide’s motion for a COA is therefore denied.
We construe Arrambide’s motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue, see Norman v. Stephens , 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th C ir. 2016), and affirm

. Arrambide ’s request that this court conduct an evidentiary hearing is denied. COA DENIED; AFFIRMED ; EVIDENTIARY HEARING DENIED

. Case: 19-50154 Document: 00515325808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMapping implicit spectral methods to distributed memory architecturesSpectral methods were proven invaluable in numerical simulation of PDEs (Partial Differential Equations), but the frequent global communication required raises a fundamental barrier to their use on highly parallel architectures. To explore this issue, a 3-D implicit spectral method was implemented on an Intel hypercube. Utilization of about 50 percent was achieved on a 32 node iPSC/860 hypercube, for a 64 x 64 x 64 Fourier-spectral grid; finer grids yield higher utilizations. Chebyshev-spectral grids are more problematic, since plane-relaxation based multigrid is required. However, by using a semicoarsening multigrid algorithm, and by relaxing all multigrid levels concurrently, relatively high utilizations were also achieved in this harder case.Document ID19910019492Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsOverman, Andrea L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Vanrosendale, John*(Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1991Subject CategoryNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-187592AD-A240034NAS 1.26:187592ICASE-91-52Accession Number91N28806Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18605PROJECT: RTOP 505-90-52-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910019492.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §2046. Disclaimers

**For provisions relating to the effect of a qualified disclaimer for purposes of this chapter, see section 2518.**

(Added Pub. L. 94–455, title XX, §2009(b)(2), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1893, §2045; renumbered §2046, Pub. L. 97–34, title IV, §403(d)(3)(A)(i), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 304.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to transfers creating an interest in person disclaiming made after Dec. 31, 1976, see section 2009(e)(2) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 2518 of this title.
### [§§1101 to 1103. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §11801(a)(34), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–521]

Section 1101, added May 9, 1956, ch. 240, §10(a), 70 Stat. 139; amended Oct. 2, 1976, Pub. L. 94–452, §2(a), 90 Stat. 1503; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1834; Oct. 19, 1982, Pub. L. 97–354, §5(a)(34), 96 Stat. 1695, related to distributions of property pursuant to Bank Holding Company Act.

Section 1102, added May 9, 1956, ch. 240, §10(a), 70 Stat. 143; amended Dec. 27, 1967, Pub. L. 90–225, §1, 81 Stat. 730; Oct. 2, 1976, Pub. L. 94–452, §2(a), 90 Stat. 1508; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1834, related to basis of property acquired in distributions, periods of limitation, allocation of earnings and profits, and itemization of property.

Section 1103, added May 9, 1956, ch. 240, §10(a), 70 Stat. 144; amended Oct. 2, 1976, Pub. L. 94–452, §2(a), 90 Stat. 1509; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1834, related to definitions for this part.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Savings Provision

For provisions that nothing in repeal by Pub. L. 101–508 be construed to affect treatment of certain transactions occurring, property acquired, or items of income, loss, deduction, or credit taken into account prior to Nov. 5, 1990, for purposes of determining liability for tax for periods ending after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 11821(b) of Pub. L. 101–508, set out as a note under section 45K of this title.
Exhibit 10.2


 


RMR Mortgage Trust


 


Summary of Trustee Compensation


 


The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation
of the Trustees of RMR Mortgage Trust (the “Company”) for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at any
time by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable:


 


		·	Each
Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $30,000 for services as a Trustee. The annual fee for any new Independent Trustee is prorated
for the initial year.



 


		·	Each Independent Trustee who serves
as a committee chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an
additional annual fee of $7,500, $5,000 and $5,000, respectively. The committee chair fee for any new committee chair is prorated for
the initial year.



 


		·	Each Trustee receives a
grant of 3,000 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual
meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).



 


		·	The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses
incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain
continuing education programs.
#### § 3802.3 Environmental protection.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 0 4 7

- C V

Style: In re MarOpCo, Inc.

Date motion filed: March 1 , 201 6

Type of motion: Unopposed Motion to Withdraw a s Counsel for Relator

Party filing motion: Barry Abrams, Susan L. Bickley, and Josh A. Huber, with the firm of Blank Rome LLP

Document to be filed:

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

The motion to withdraw as relator’s counsel of Barry Abrams, Susan L. Bickley, and Josh A. Huber, with the

firm of Blank Rome LLP, is granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5(d). The Clerk of th is Court is directed to note on the

docket counsel’s withdrawal from representing relator.

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennnings



Date: _ March 8, 2016
### §6215. Assessment of deficiency found by Tax Court

#### (a) General rule

If the taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court, the entire amount redetermined as the deficiency by the decision of the Tax Court which has become final shall be assessed and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Secretary. No part of the amount determined as a deficiency by the Secretary but disallowed as such by the decision of the Tax Court which has become final shall be assessed or be collected by levy or by proceeding in court with or without assessment.

#### (b) Cross references

**(1) For assessment or collection of the amount of the deficiency determined by the Tax Court pending appellate court review, see section 7485.**

**(2) For dismissal of petition by Tax Court as affirmation of deficiency as determined by the Secretary, see section 7459(d).**

**(3) For decision of Tax Court that tax is barred by limitation as its decision that there is no deficiency, see section 7459(e).**

**(4) For assessment of damages awarded by Tax Court for instituting proceedings merely for delay, see section 6673.**

**(5) For rules applicable to Tax Court proceedings, see generally subchapter C of chapter 76.**

**(6) For extension of time for paying amount determined as deficiency, see section 6161(b).**

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 773; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(a)(16), (b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1825, 1834; Pub. L. 99–514, title XIV, §1404(c)(2), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2714; Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(b)(46), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1204.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b)(5) to (7). Pub. L. 115–141 redesignated pars. (6) and (7) as (5) and (6), respectively, and struck out former par. (5) which read as follows: "For treatment of certain deficiencies as having been paid, in connection with sale of surplus war-built vessels, see section 9(b)(8) of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1742)."

1986—Subsec. (b)(7), (8). Pub. L. 99–514 redesignated par. (8) as (7) and struck out former par. (7) which read as follows: "For proration of deficiency to installments, see section 6152(c)."

1976—Pub. L. 94–455, §1906(b)(13)(A), struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.

Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 94–455, §1906(a)(16), struck out "60 Stat. 48;" before "50 U.S.C. App. 1742".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986, see section 1404(d) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 643 of this title.

#### Savings Provision

For provisions that nothing in amendment by Pub. L. 115–141 be construed to affect treatment of certain transactions occurring, property acquired, or items of income, loss, deduction, or credit taken into account prior to Mar. 23, 2018, for purposes of determining liability for tax for periods ending after Mar. 23, 2018, see section 401(e) of Pub. L. 115–141, set out as a note under section 23 of this title.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael G. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of Accenture Ltd, thegeneral partner of Accenture SCA, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”)of Accenture SCA (the “Registrant”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this AnnualReport;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.    /s/ MICHAEL G. MCGRATH   Chief Financial Officer ofAccenture Ltd(principal financial officer)
Dated: November 4, 2004
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Renewable Energy





Contact Us
  Offshore Wind Energy
 Offshore wind turbineLillgrund Offshore Wind Farm, Siemens Offshore Wind turbines, Oresund Sound Sweden. Photo by Siemens AG, NREL 27847.  **** Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
 
   
 Underwater Noise
 
 Turbine Strike
 
 Visual Impacts
 
 Other Impacts
 
 Outer Continental Shelf Alternative Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement of 2007
 **** Energy 101: Wind Turbines, U.S. Department of Energy
 Last updated: September 21, 2016
 Tools Site Index


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### Cale *v.*Davis.

September 30, 1910.

Motion to set aside judgment. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. December 31, 1908.

Cited by counsel:

Civil Code of 1895, §§ 2412 et seq., 4975, 5869, 5871; Wightman *v.*Wightman, 4 Johns. Ch. 343; 26 Cyc. 827, 903 et seq.; *Griffin*v. *Griffin,*130 *Ga.*527, 531, and cit.; *Bell*v. *Bennett,*73 *Ga.*784; Wilson *v.*Wilson (Minn.), 104 N. W. 301; *Fleming*v. *West,*98 *Ga.*780; *Stallings*v. *Stallings,*127 *Ga.*468.

*Austin Branch*and *George T. Jaclcson,*for plaintiff in error.

*William H. Fleming,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

In 1908 a petition addressed to the superior court was filed in a county of this State, alleging in substance as follows: The plaintiff has now and for over one year prior to the filing of the petition has had his residence in said State and county. The defendant resides outside of the limits of the State, somewhere in the State of South Carolina, her exact location being unknown to the plaintiff. On a named date a marriage ceremony was performed between the plaintiff and the defendant. At the time of the ceremony the plaintiff was so drunk that he was deprived of reason, did not understand the nature and quality of his act, and was unable to consent to the marriage contract. “Shortly after the said ceremony plaintiff repudiated said marriage, and since- that time has never lived with defendant as man and wife.” No : children have1 been born of the union. The plaintiff prayed, “that said marriage be declared and adjudged null and void, and that he be forever released and' discharged from any and all obligations and duties arising from said pretended marriage, and for such other relief as to the court may seem meet and proper in the premises.” Service was made by publication. There was no appearance for the defendant. A verdict was found by one jury “in favor of the annulment of said marriage,” and a decree was entered declaring the marriage to be null and void, and that the plaintiff and defendant be absolved from any duties or liabilities arising therefrom. At the same term a motion to set aside the verdict and decree was made, on the grounds, that there was no jurisdiction in.the court to entertain the suit, treating the action as one not for divorce but for annulment, the jurisdiction being in .South Carolina; and also that the proceeding for the annulment of the marriage was in law a suit for divorce, and’ the decree was void because it was based on one verdict, whereas the constitution requires two verdicts at successive terms for the granting of divorces. The motion was granted, and the judgment or decree was set aside. *Held,*that this was not error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Beck and Holden, JJ., who dissent.*
### §§809, 810. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159

Section 809, acts Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title X, §1021, 60 Stat. 1031; Sept. 8, 1960, Pub. L. 86–723, §48, 74 Stat. 847, set forth provisions respecting acceptance of gifts on behalf of United States.

Section 810, act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title X, §1031, 60 Stat. 1032, authorized Secretary to retain attorneys.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00793-CV

K. J. B., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 10-506-C26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

K.J.B. appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for expunction of records

pertaining to his August 9, 2002 arrest for a felony. Although the State initially opposed the petition

and this appeal, the expunction statute was amended during the pendency of this appeal. See Act of

May 27, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 690, § 1, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws ____ (codified at Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. art. 55.01 (West Supp. 2011)). The amendments apply to expunction of arrest records

and files for any criminal offense that occurred before, on, or after September 1, 2011. Id. § 7. More

than three years have passed since the arrest, and the parties agree that no indictment or information

charging appellant with the offense was ever presented and that K.J.B. was not convicted or put

under court-ordered community supervision. The State agrees that, under these facts and the statute

as amended and applicable to this case, K.J.B. is entitled to expunction of the records pertaining to

this arrest. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a) (West Supp. 2011).
Without regard to the merits of the trial court’s Order of Denial or the appeal under

the law existing at the time the decision was made and the appeal was filed, we conclude and

the parties agree that K.J.B. is now entitled to expunction of these records. We reverse the

trial court’s Order of Denial and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of an order expunging

records pertaining to K.J.B.’s arrest on August 9, 2002 consistent with the applicable statute and

this opinion.

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: March 1, 2012

2