alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61287-CIV-SMITH/REID

CARLOS RAMOS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHERIFF GREGORY TONY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter came before the Court upon the Report of Magistrate Judge [DE 7], in which 

Magistrate Judge Reid recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(A)(1) for failure to state a claim. No objections were filed to the Report. Having 

reviewed the Report and the record, and given that there are no objections, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Report of Magistrate Judge [DE 7] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED: 

a. Plaintiff’s Complaint [DE 1,5] is DISMISSED, without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(A)(1). 

2. This case is CLOSED. 

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 2nd day of November 2020.

cc: Pro se Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61287-RS Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 1 of 1
§ 4.1351 Preliminary finding by OSM. ( a ) If OSM determines that an applicant or operator controls or has controlled surface coal mining and reclamation operations with a demonstrated pattern of willful violations and the violations are of such nature and duration with such resulting irreparable damage to the environment as to indicate an intent not to comply with the Act, its implementing regulations, the regulatory program, or the permit, OSM must serve a preliminary finding of permanent permit ineligibility on the applicant or operator.
( b ) OSM must serve the preliminary finding by certified mail, or by overnight delivery service if the applicant or operator has agreed to bear the expense for this service. The preliminary finding must specifically state the violations upon which it is based.
[67 FR 61511, Oct. 1, 2002]
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1201 Scope of the rules in this subpart. ( a ) The rules of practice in this subpart apply to appeals to OHA from certain final SBA loan review decisions under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) as described in paragraph (b) of this section, and to any other PPP matter referred to OHA by the Administrator of SBA. The PPP was established as a temporary program under section 1102 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (Pub. L. 116-136), as amended. PPP loans include first draw PPP loans made under Section 7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act and second draw PPP loans made under Section 7(a)(37) of the Small Business Act.
( b ) A final SBA loan review decision that is appealable under this subpart is an official written decision by SBA, after SBA completes a review of a PPP loan, that finds a borrower: ( 1 ) Was ineligible for a PPP loan;
( 2 ) Was ineligible for the PPP loan amount received or used the PPP loan proceeds for unauthorized uses;
( 3 ) Is ineligible for PPP loan forgiveness in the amount determined by the lender in its full approval or partial approval decision issued to SBA; and/or
( 4 ) Is ineligible for PPP loan forgiveness in any amount when the lender has issued a full denial decision to SBA.
( c ) A borrower cannot directly file an appeal of a decision made by a lender concerning a PPP loan with OHA.
( d ) An appeal to OHA is an administrative remedy that must be exhausted before judicial review of a final SBA loan review decision may be sought in a Federal district court.
( e ) Any determination by SBA's Office of Inspector General concerning a PPP loan is not appealable to OHA.
( f ) This subpart does not create any right to appeal any SBA decision on any 7(a) loans (*see* part 120 of this chapter) other than PPP loans.
( g ) The Rules of Practice for Appeals From Size Determinations and NAICS Code Designations in subpart C of this part do not apply to appeals of final SBA loan review decisions or to the PPP.
( h ) In addition to the provisions in subpart B of this part specifically referenced in this subpart, the following regulations from subpart B of this part also apply to this subpart: §§ 134.207 (Amendments and supplemental pleadings); 134.208 (Representation in cases before OHA); 134.209 (Requirement of signature); 134.211 (Motions); 134.212 (Summary judgment); 134.217 (Settlement); 134.218 (Judges); 134.219 (Sanctions); and 134.220 (Prohibition on ex parte communications). Other provisions from subpart B of this part that are not specifically referenced in this subpart do not apply to this subpart.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from 
     ALPACA, INC. September 30, 1996 financial  statements and  is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894503
<NAME>                        ALPACA, INC.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1,000)
<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>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateStandards Development

# Codes and Standards Mapping to Regulatory Guidance

        - Supporting Data

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 26, 2024
### Part C—Program Requirements for Service Delivery System
### §§101 to 108. Repealed. Aug. 27, 1935, ch. 740, title I, §1, 49 Stat. 872

Section 101, act May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §1, 46 Stat. 427, provided that this chapter may be cited as the "Prohibition Reorganization Act of 1930".

Section 102, act May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §2, 46 Stat. 427, established a Bureau of Prohibition in Department of Justice and authorized appointment of a Director and Assistant Director of Prohibition and designation of officers and employees.

Section 103, act May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §3, 46 Stat. 428, related to creation of an enforcement division in Bureau of Prohibition in Treasury Department.

Section 104, act May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §4, 46 Stat. 428, related to imposition of duties on Attorney General with respect to enforcement of prohibition laws.

Section 105, acts May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §5, 46 Stat. 429; Mar. 31, 1933, ch. 18, §4, 48 Stat. 24, authorized Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury to jointly prescribe regulations relating to permits and prescriptions for liquor for medicinal purposes.

Section 106, act May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §6, 46 Stat. 429, related to filing of reports by Attorney General with Secretary of the Treasury with respect to civil liabilities for taxes and penalties and filing of reports by Secretary of the Treasury with Attorney General with respect to revocation of permits.

Section 107, act May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §7, 46 Stat. 429, related to grant, renewal, and amendment of permits.

Section 108, act May 27, 1930, ch. 342, §8, 46 Stat. 430, provided that Bureau of Prohibition shall hereafter be known as Bureau of Industrial Alcohol, and Commissioner of Prohibition shall hereafter have title of Commissioner of Industrial Alcohol.
§ 8.1 Lands for reservoir construction and operation. The fee title will be acquired to the following: ( a ) Lands necessary for permanent structures.
( b ) Lands below the maximum flowage line of the reservoir including lands below a selected freeboard where necessary to safeguard against the effects of saturation, wave action, and bank erosion and the permit induced surcharge operation.
( c ) Lands needed to provide for public access to the maximum flowage line as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or for operation and maintenance of the project.
-cr-06216-LSS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2000 P
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 211

**Question 211:** 20.1502 (a) (2) and (b) (2) say that monitoring is required for declared pregnant women "...likely to receive, in 1 year,..." a dose in excess of 10 percent of the applicable limits for the embryo / fetus.
> 
(a) What year does this refer to? 

(b) Since the gestation period is 9 months (and since monitoring would begin after the declaration, which may be several months into a pregnancy), why does the regulation use a year? 

(c) The licensee badges a declared pregnant woman (whose estimated date of delivery is in January or February) during the current calendar year. The licensee then estimates that for the next calendar year, between the start of the year and delivery, the declared pregnant woman's external doses will be less that 10 percent of the applicable embryo / fetus dose limits, is the licensee required to badge the woman for the new year? 

(d) Can licensees assume that after delivery, the "year" time period is over and that monitoring the woman (to demonstrate compliance with the embryo / fetus dose limits) is no longer required?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) The word "year" is used to indicate a 12-month period starting in January. (See definition of year in 10 CFR 20.1003).

(b) This requirement is for determining whether monitoring must be provided, and the term year is used to be consistent with other monitoring criteria as specified in 10 CFR 20.1502.

(c) Once a determination is made to monitor the declared pregnant woman, monitoring is to continue for the entire pregnancy, to determine compliance with the limit of exposure to the embryo / fetus.

(d) Yes. Once the woman is no longer a declared pregnant woman, the need to provide monitoring will be based on requirements of 10 CFR 20.1502 (a) (1). 

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1502, 10 CFR 20.1003)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2014

t0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

148838

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148838

COA: 305917 

Wayne CC: 76-002436-FC

RONALD EARL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Millard Madden, Respondent, v. Marjorie Herriman et al., Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Harris, MeCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 126
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 126.404 What are the possible outcomes of a program examination and when will SBA make its determination? ( a ) *Timing.* SBA will make its determination within 90 calendar days after SBA receives all requested information, when practicable.
( b ) *Program examinations on certified HUBZone small business concerns.* If the program examination was conducted on a certified HUBZone small business concern— ( 1 ) And the D/HUB (or designee) determines that the concern is eligible, SBA will send a written notice to the HUBZone small business concern and continue to designate the concern as a certified HUBZone small business concern in DSBS (or successor system).
( 2 ) And the D/HUB (or designee) determines that the concern is not eligible, the concern will have 30 days to submit documentation showing that it is eligible. During the 30-day period, such concern may not compete for or be awarded a HUBZone contract. If such concern fails to demonstrate its eligibility by the last day of the 30-day period, the concern will be decertified.
( c ) *Program examinations on applicants.* If the program examination was conducted on an applicant to the HUBZone program— ( 1 ) And the D/HUB (or designee) determines that the concern is eligible, SBA will send a written certification notice to the concern and designate the concern as a certified HUBZone small business concern in DSBS (or successor system).
( 2 ) And the D/HUB (or designee) determines that the concern is ineligible, SBA will send a written decline notice to the concern.
[84 FR 65245, Nov. 26, 2019]
WITH A 

PARK RANGER

DRAW

1

2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

Start out with simple shapes.

Try to draw lightly for now. We’re 

going to draw over this at the end!

Add lines for the bear’s legs.

Draw the bear’s ears and

the bottom of its head.

Give your bear a snout

and two small eyes.

Add a few details, 

like a nose and claws.

Draw over your light lines.

Give your bear some fur, and

color it in if you’d like!

Draw an “s” shape 

for the bear’s shoulder.

Draw in the rest 

of the bear’s legs.

Draw four big bear paws!

Yosemite National Park 2020

Let’s draw 

this Yosemite 

black bear!
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.702 Are there limitations on who can be an Intermediary or on where an Intermediary may operate? ( a ) *Prior experience requirement.* To be eligible to be an Intermediary, an organization must: ( 1 ) Have made and serviced short-term fixed rate loans of not more than $50,000 to newly established or growing small businesses for at least one year: and
( 2 ) Have at least one year of experience providing technical assistance to its borrowers.
( b ) *Limitation to one state.* An Intermediary may not operate in more than one state unless the appropriate Office of Capital Access official in accordance with Delegations of Authority determines that it would be in the best interests of the small business community for it to operate across state lines.
[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 66 FR 47878, Sept. 14, 2001; 73 FR 75517, Dec. 11, 2008; 76 FR 63546, Oct. 12, 2011]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

142 

CA 13-01350 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

MERLE A. HARVEY AND DIANE F. HARVEY, 

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RANDY AGLE AND AMY AGLE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP, BUFFALO (ADAM P. HANEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

TREVETT CRISTO SALZER & ANDOLINA P.C., ROCHESTER (MICHAEL F. GERACI OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R.

Glownia, J.), entered January 3, 2013. The order denied plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by granting plaintiffs’ motion insofar

as it sought summary judgment on the promissory note in the amount of

$75,000 and as modified the order is affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, contend on

appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying in its entirety their

motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213

with respect to two promissory notes, and instead should have granted

the motion insofar as it sought summary judgment on one of the

promissory notes, in the amount of $75,000. We agree, and we

therefore modify the order accordingly. Plaintiffs met their initial

burden by submitting the subject note, which contained a clause that

accelerated the balance in the event that defendants defaulted, and by

submitting evidence that defendants failed to make a required,

biannual interest payment by the June 21, 2012 deadline (see Sandu v

Sandu, 94 AD3d 1545, 1546; Kehoe v Abate, 62 AD3d 1178, 1180). In

opposition thereto, defendants failed to “come forward with

evidentiary proof showing the existence of a triable issue of fact

with respect to a bona fide defense of the note” (Judarl v Cycletech,

Inc., 246 AD2d 736, 737; see Ring v Jones, 13 AD3d 1078, 1078). 

Although “knowledgeable acceptance of late payments over an extended

period of time . . . establishes the necessary elements to constitute

a waiver of the right to insist upon timely payments” (Snide v Larrow,

93 AD2d 959, 959, affd 62 NY2d 633; see Madison Ave. Leasehold, LLC v

Madison Bentley Assoc. LLC, 30 AD3d 1, 6, affd 8 NY3d 59, rearg denied

8 NY3d 867), defendants established, at most, that they had made only
-2- 142 

CA 13-01350 

two prior untimely payments on the subject note. Evidence that

plaintiffs had routinely accepted untimely monthly payments on a

second promissory note representing a separate obligation between the

parties does not compel a different result.

Frances E. Cafarell

Entered: March 21, 2014

Clerk of the Court
IPM Files -- MATS Policy Case: 5 of 6 

 12/09/2011 04:48 PM 

From: Erich Eschmann/DC/USEPA/US Sort List... 

 

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb 

Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mikhail Adamantiades/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Erich Eschmann 

Clean Air Markets Division 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation 

 

202 343-9128 Phone 

202 343-2359 Fax 

eschmann.erich@epa.gov

MATS Policy Case_5.zip
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 1 of 2
PROOF OF SERVICE

.

on 

on 

on 

0.00

Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 2 of 2 Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 2 of 2
(No. 830

Claimant awarded $582.70 with interest.)

#### State Bank of Chicago, Executor of the Estate of Sherman T. Cooper, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Inheritance *tax*— refund *or renunciation of will by widow.*Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, under Sec. 25, of Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards the widow files her renunciation of the provisions of the will made for her, and by subsequent proceedings in the county court there was an overpayment of the tax by reason of, such renunciation, claimant. is entitled to a refund of the amount overpaid.

Gardner & Carton, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The State Bank of Chicago, as executor of the estate of Sherman C. Cooper, deceased, brings this suit to recover on refund an amount alleged to be due deceased under the provisions of Section 25 of the inheritance laws of Illinois.

After the appraisement, fixing the amount inheritance tax to be paid under order of the county judge and the payment of the same, and after the renunciation of the provisions of. the wil-1, making certain provisions for the widow, and by subsequent findings and order of the county court, there became due to claimant the sum of $582.70, to which it is entitled to refund.

It seems that this is what Assistant Attorney General Eagleton designates Claim No. 2, and the matter has been taken up by him for the State and gone into very carefully with claimant, and the parties have mutually agreed that the sum of $582.70 should be refunded to claimant. This the Attorney General, by his said assistant, Eagleton, reports in his answer, and by making oral explanation in open court. The evidence supports the claim, and by mutual agreement as aforesaid, the court hereby awards claimant the sum of $582.70, with 3% interest from October 14, 1923.
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 297A/29 Ν

| | ISSN 1725-2415 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 297A |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 48ό έτος29 Νοεμβρίου 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2415

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 297A

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

48ό έτος29 Νοεμβρίου 2005

---

| Ανακοίνωση αριθ | Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Πληροφορίες |
| | Επιτροπή |
| 2005/C 297A/1 | Προκήρυξη κενής θέσης Προέδρου του Κοινοτικού Γραφείου Φυτικών Ποικιλιών (Βαθμός A*14) (άρθρο 29 παράγραφος 2 του κανονισμού υπηρεσιακής κατάστασης) — COM/2005/10015 | 1 |

Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

III   Πληροφορίες

Επιτροπή

2005/C 297A/1

Προκήρυξη κενής θέσης Προέδρου του Κοινοτικού Γραφείου Φυτικών Ποικιλιών (Βαθμός A*14) (άρθρο 29 παράγραφος 2 του κανονισμού υπηρεσιακής κατάστασης) — COM/2005/10015

1

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

III Πληροφορίες

Επιτροπή

| 29.11.2005 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 297/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2005

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 297/1

---

ΠΡΟΚΉΡΥΞΗ ΚΕΝΉΣ ΘΈΣΗΣ ΠΡΟΈΔΡΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΙΚΟΫ ΓΡΑΦΕΊΟΥ ΦΥΤΙΚΏΝ ΠΟΙΚΙΛΙΏΝ

(Βαθμός A*14)

(άρθρο 29 παράγραφος 2 του κανονισμού υπηρεσιακής κατάστασης)

COM/2005/10015

(2005/C 297 A/01)

Το Κοινοτικό Γραφείο Φυτικών Ποικιλιών καλεί τους ενδιαφερόμενους να υποβάλουν υποψηφιότητα για την πλήρωση της κενής θέσης του Προέδρου του.

Οι υποψήφιοι πρέπει να είναι υπήκοοι ενός κράτους μέλους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Ο Πρόεδρος διορίζεται από το Συμβούλιο, από κατάλογο υποψηφίων που θα προτείνει η Επιτροπή ύστερα από γνωμοδότηση του διοικητικού συμβουλίου του Γραφείου. Ο μισθός και οι όροι απασχόλησης συνίστανται στα όσα ορίζει ο κανονισμός υπηρεσιακής κατάστασης για τους υπαλλήλους του βαθμού A*14 των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων. Το Κοινοτικό Γραφείο Φυτικών Ποικιλιών και η Επιτροπή εφαρμόζουν πολιτική ίσων ευκαιριών.

Η περιγραφή των καθηκόντων, οι αιτήσεις υποψηφιότητας και οι οδηγίες για την αποστολή των αιτήσεων μπορούν να τηλεφορτωθούν από τις ακόλουθες διευθύνσεις στο Διαδίκτυο:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm

ή

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/propertyrights/index_en.htm

Η προθεσμία παραλαβής των αιτήσεων λήγει στις 31 Δεκεμβρίου 2005 (βλ. λεπτομέρειες στις οδηγίες υποβολής των αιτήσεων).

---