alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6764

KEVIN L. CHOICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. HENRY MCKELLAR, Circuit Judge for Third Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; WILLIAM H.CROFT, Solicitor for the Third Judicial Circuit; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-01-918-3) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Choice, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kevin L. Choice appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Choice v. McKellar , No. CA-01-918-3 (D.S.C. Apr. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22897]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Review of a 
Currently Approved Information Collection: RI 98-7

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a currently approved 
information collection. RI 98-7, We Need Important Information About 
Your Eligibility for Social Security Disability Benefits, is used by 
OPM to verify receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) 
disability benefits, to lessen or avoid overpayment to Federal 
Employees Retirement System (FERS) disability retirees. It notifies the 
annuitant of the responsibility to notify OPM if SSA benefits begin and 
the overpayment that will occur with the receipt of both benefits.
    Approximately 3,000 RI 98-7 forms will be completed annually. The 
form takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 
250 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cda0afb9a2a2a0a8b48da2bda0e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="49242b3d2626242c3009263924672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--
Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services 
Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 
20415-3540;

     and

Joseph F. Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management & Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, 
Publications Team, Administrative Services Branch, (202) 606-0623.

Office of Personnel Management.
Kay Coles James,
Director.
[FR Doc. 04-22897 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Docket Number FAA 2014**  **- 0622**
#### George H. Wiley et al., Respondents, v. Nat Moses et al., as Executors of Lena Less, Deceased, Appellants.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis. JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00047

- CR
Layne Alan Derouen v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 22

- 5166

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH 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

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 6 , 2023
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier: -AD



### ff'.vou make changes 

### to the values in the table below. you must ensure the**total.~** 

### update accordingly (l 

### th e y do not, click (or Tah) into 

### a11d then out 

### of the changed cell

. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., a i rcraft, eng in e, (e.g. , In spection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for 

### U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, test ing , ( @$85/ h parts) Registered and close-up) our) P roducts Replacement or 41.0**:~"'** q $15,478 I I• , 'l\ )I 1 ,28 1 Modificaiton ,; l)f Concurrent Installation or 60.0 l»l I $18,089 

### ' ., j 

### ':t t H) 

### 214**t;~** i Modification \ 0 ()(1 

### ' n P•l ,I II) 

### :- 0.00 \ 

### n ntJ U ,Ill 

### ' 0 !10 

# " n 1ru 

### ' ( 1 111) ' (, '.10**~I** 01) 

## n (HI \ 'l llj) 

### ., li II/) ·, il 011 

### o

.no ' ,, p \II, 

### (' "'I

... () ()f) ' {;,!Hl 

# ., 0 IH! 

### " ( 1.()(\ ) !! 

### no ' > IJ.llll ll,()p \ 

### n 110 ., \) iri



### .. 0 ''" >J (HI 

### u (Ill tl ( lp I) Ill) II {HI /)'H ,, iiO I I!• I ' I I {I() '• {;ill I p , ,



## () oo II fll> (1 {It '\ \)

. 0\! 

### ' tl,! )" I' I' I (j(\ ' :) i' I 'I \ I 1)1 I I) Iii I I' {!I\ (),(II \{Ill ' i 1

. d The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $29,254 ,049 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) $
On-Condition Costs: ,. , Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e

.g., Inspec t ion , (include access, (@$85/hour) testing, and close- replacement) up) \ t!.Oil ' \1 il(} 

## ' 0 ()()

.... (1 lltl 

### :-. t) I 1 l i <, IJ rHl " l' 

### ' 'I Pol 

### Specia l considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Same as existing

### Exec utive Order 12866: 

### Could the AD be co nsidered a "s ignificant regulatory



# ac **ti "?~** 

**·** YES* 

# D NO 

### 1:8] *Exp lanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : 

### Is the AD sig nifi cant?

-- YES* 

# D NO 

### 1:8] *Exp lanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

### Will th e AD have a s i gnifi cant econo mic impact on a sub stantial number of small e ntiti es? Explain for e ither a Yes or No answer . - 1 

### YE S 

# 0 NO 

### 1:8] Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

### T hi s AD could aff ect intrastate aviation in Ala ska. I s it appropriate to include spec ifi c r eq uirements for a ir craft operated in Ala s k a where aviation mi ght be the only mode of tran sportati on?



# ~ YES* 

# D NO 

### 1:8] *Exp lanation:
#### Jean M. Smith, Respondent, v. Earl Brown, Appellant.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified so as to permit the defendant to replead paragraphs 26 and 27 of his answer in mitigation of compensatory and punitive damages, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
[No. 7077.

Decided January 30, 1908.]

#### Z. B. Taylor, Respondent, v. G. Debritz *et al., Appellants.**1*

Taxation — Payment—Omission of Taxing Officebs. A tax sale and deed thereunder is void, where the owner in good faith applied to the proper officers for a statement of the taxes due, paid all that was demanded, and full payment was prevented hy the mistake or fault of the officers.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior ■ court for King county, Albertson, J., entered April 30, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to vacate tax foreclosure proceedings.'

Affirmed.

*Ralph Simon,*for appellants.

*Hayden & Langhorne,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 93 Pac. 528.

Per Curiam.

This was an action to set aside a tax deed-based on the foreclosure of a delinquency certificate for the taxes of 1888. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendants have appealed.

The testimony introduced at the trial showed, and the court found:

> “That after purchasing said land, beginning with the year 1889 and each and every year thereafter, plaintiff requested from the proper collecting officers of King county statements of the taxes due as well as the taxes delinquent against said land. That each and every yéar since the purchase of said land, beginning with the year 1889, the proper collecting officers of King county asserted and represented to the plaintiff by written and verbal statement that there were no taxes unpaid or delinquent against said land, except such taxes as this plaintiff had theretofore paid. That this plaintiff has paid the taxes on said land beginning with the taxes assessed for the year 1889 down to and including the taxes assessed for the year 1906.”

*374Considering a similar state of facts in the recent case of *Bullock v. Wallace,*47 Wash. 690, 92 Pac. 675, this court quoted the following from the 27 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d ed.), p. 755:

> “If the owner of land, or a party having an interest therein, in good faith applies to the proper officer for the purpose of paying the tax thereon, and payment is prevented by the mistake or fault of such officer, . . . the attempt to pay is considered, in most jurisdictions, as the legal equivalent of payment in so far as to discharge the lien and bar a sale for payment and said:

> “The facts, we think, require the holding that the foreclosure was unauthorized in law, that the sale and deed thereunder were void, and that appellant was not divested of her title thereby.”

To the same effect see *Loving v. McPhail, ante*p. 113, 92 Pac. 944. On the authority of the above cases the judgment in this case must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
#### STATE *v.*TONOPAH EXTENSION M. CO.

No. 2711

(See 49 Nev. 428)

May 4, 1927.

On Petition for Rehearing

Per *Curiam:*

Rehearing denied.
#### Banque Continentale de Paris, Respondent, v. David Liebmann, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
#### Sam Bacharach, Appellant, *v.*American Union Realty Company, Respondent.

*Practice — demurrer—plaintiff's motion for judgment on*pleadings— *relief.*

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Term, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 6th day of April, 1914, affirming an order of the City Court denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Per Curiam:

The notice of motion.given by the plaintiff was for judgment on the pleadings. Ho motion was made by the defendant for judgment in its favor. We think the Special Term of the City Coiu-t correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; but no motion having been made to sustain the demurrer, the order should have been confined to a simple denial of the plaintiff’s motion, with ten dollars costs to the defendant. (See *Ventriniglia*v. *Eichner,*138 App. Div. 274; *Buff*v. *Queensbro Heights Band Corporation,*156 id. 913.) The determination appealed from and the order of the City Court are, therefore, modified as indicated, and as so modified affirmed, *941with ten dollars costs and disbursements of this appeal. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Determination modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to defendant. Order to be settled on notice.
### §3342. Buy-American requirements

#### (a) Compliance with Buy American Act

None of the funds made available under subchapter I or II or under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.) may be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds the entity will comply with sections 8301 through 8303 of title 41 (commonly known as the "Buy American Act").

#### (b) Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice

#### (1) Purchase of American-made equipment and products

In the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided using funds made available under subchapter I or II or under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.), it is the sense of Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and products.

#### (2) Notice to recipients of assistance

In providing financial assistance using funds made available under subchapter I or II or under the Wagner-Peyser Act, the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in paragraph (1) by Congress.

#### (c) Prohibition of contracts with persons falsely labeling products as Made in America

If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing a "Made in America" inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made available under subchapter I or II or under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.), pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, as such sections were in effect on August 7, 1998, or pursuant to any successor regulations.

(Pub. L. 113–128, title V, §502, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1700.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Wagner-Peyser Act, referred to in text, is act June 6, 1933, ch. 49, 48 Stat. 113, which is classified generally to chapter 4B (§49 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 49 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113–128, set out as a note under section 3101 of this title.
October 21, 2008
#### Azik L. Glasberg v. Nish Vartanian et al., Impleaded with Another.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
Date: 

Subject: 

From: 

To: 

August 2, 2012 

Information on non-PFOS Fume Suppressants in Minnesota Chromium 

Electroplating Facilities 

Project Team 

Docket 

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the data regarding non-perfluorooctyl 

sulfonates (PFOS) fume suppressants received from the industry association, the State of 

Minnesota, and facilities in Minnesota. 

I. Background 

The state of Minnesota required chromium electroplating facilities that used a PFOS fume 

suppressant to switch to a non-PFOS based fume suppressant in 2008. A summary of the 

questions, the plants contacted, and the responses are included in Table 1. Table 2 is a list of 

surface tension readings at a facility. Table 3 is a list of surface tension readings at a facility 

along with the amount ofnon-PFOS fume suppressant added to the tank.
Together, America Prospers

Housing Preservation Grants

What does this 

program do?

It provides grants to sponsoring 

organizations for the repair 

or rehabilitation of housing 

occupied by low- and 

very-low-income (1) people.

Who may apply 

for this program?

• Most State and local

governmental entities

• Nonprofit organizations

• Federally recognized Tribes

• Individual homeowners are

not eligible

What is an eligible area?

Areas that may be served include:

• Rural areas and towns with

20,000 or fewer people –

Check eligible addresses

• Federally recognized Tribal lands

How may funds be used?

• Applicants provide grants or

low-interest loans to repair or

rehabilitate housing for low- and

very low-income (1) homeowners

• Rental property owners may also

receive assistance if they agree to

make units available to low- and very

low-income (1) families

• Eligible expenses include:

° Repairing or replacing electrical

wiring, foundations, roofs, 

insulation, heating systems, and 

water/waste disposal systems

° Handicap accessibility features

° Labor and materials

° Administrative expenses

° For a complete list, see 

Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 1944.664

How do we get started?

Applications are accepted on an 

annual basis through a Notice of 

Funding Availability (NOFA) in the 

Federal Register.

Who can answer questions?

Contact your RD State office.

What governs this program?

• Code of Federal Regulation,

7 CFR 1944-N

• RD Instruction 1944-N

• RD Instruction 1940-L, Methodology

and Formulas for Allocation of

Loan and Grant Program Funds

• RD Instruction 1940-G,

Environmental Program

• RD Instruction 1901-E, Civil Rights

Compliance Requirements

• This program is authorized by

Title V of the Housing Act of 1949

NOTE: Because citations and other information may be subject to change, 

please always consult the program instructions listed in the section above 

titled “What Governs This Program?” You may also contact your local office for 

assistance. You will find additional forms, resources, and program information at 

rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Last Updated January 2020
# OUTPUT

Schedule A-4Page &P of &N

# image1.jpeg
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- The Boeing Company Under Contract No. NAS 10-02007 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60374

Scott M. McCaleb, Esq. John R. Prairie, Esq. J. Ryan Frazee, Esq.

Wiley Rein, LLP Washington, DC Scott W. Barber, Esq.

NASA ChiefTrial Attorney AlexanderT. Bakos, Esq.

Trial Attorney NASA Headquarters Washington, DC Ellen E. Espenschied, Esq.

Assistant ChiefCounsel Kennedy Space Center, FL ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 22 June 2017

DAVID D'ALESSANDRIS Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60374, Appeal ofThe Boeing Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 63972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25247]

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

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Notice of Proposed Methodology for the 2014 Delaware River and 
Bay Water Quality Assessment Report

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the methodology proposed to be 
used in the 2014 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report 
is available for review and comment.

DATES: Comments on the assessment methodology or recommendations for 
the consideration of data sets must be received in writing by 5:00 p.m. 
Eastern on December 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted via email to 
john.yagecic@drbc.state.nj.us, with ``Water Quality Assessment 2014'' 
as the subject line; via fax to 609-883-9522; via U.S. Mail to DRBC, 
Attn: Water Quality Assessment 2014, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 
08628-0360; via private carrier to DRBC, Attn: Water Quality Assessment 
2014, 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360; or by hand to 
the latter address. All submissions should have the phrase ``Water 
Quality Assessment 2014'' in the subject line and should include the 
name, address (street address optional) and affiliation, if any, of the 
commenter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Yagecic, Supervisor, 
Standards and Assessment Section, DRBC Modeling, Monitoring and 
Assessment Branch, john.yagecic@drbc.state.nj.us, 609-883-9500, ext. 
271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Delaware River Basin Commission 
(``DRBC'' or ``Commission'') is an interstate and federal compact 
agency that was created in 1961 by concurrent legislation of the States 
of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
and the United States Government for purpose of jointly managing the 
water resources of the Delaware River Basin.
    DRBC currently is compiling data for the 2014 Delaware River and 
Bay Water Quality Assessment Report (``2014 Assessment'') required by 
the federal Clean Water Act (``CWA''). The 2014 Assessment will present 
the extent to which waters of the Delaware River and Bay are attaining 
designated uses in accordance with Section 305(b) of the CWA and the 
Commission's Water Quality Regulations, 18 CFR Part 410, and will 
identify impaired waters, which consist of waters in which surface 
water quality standards are not being met.
    The assessment methodology to be used in the 2014 Assessment is 
available for review at the following url: http://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/Methodology-WQAssess-draft_sept2013.pdf.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Pamela M. Bush,
Commission Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-25247 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6360-01-P
```