alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 9.10 Identify impacts of proposed actions. ( a ) This section ensures that the effects of proposed Agency actions are identified.
( b ) The Agency shall identify the potential direct and indirect adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential direct and indirect support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action. Such identification of impacts shall be to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of this part to avoid floodplain and wetland locations unless they are the only practicable alternatives to minimize harm to and within floodplains and wetlands.
( c ) This identification shall consider whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question, maintain the investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands.
( d ) In the review of a proposed or alternative action, the Regional Administrator shall consider and evaluate: impacts associated with modification of wetlands and floodplains regardless of its location; additional impacts which may occur when certain types of actions may support subsequent action which have additional impacts of their own; adverse impacts of the proposed actions on lives and property and on natural and beneficial floodplain and wetland values; and the three categories of factors listed below: ( 1 ) *Flood hazard-related factors.* These include, but are not limited to, the factors listed in § 9.7(b)(3);
( 2 ) *Natural values-related factors.* These include, but are not limited to: water resource values, as in storing and conveying floodwaters, maintaining water quality, and groundwater recharge; living resource values, as in providing habitats and enhancing biodiversity for fish and wildlife and plant resources; cultural resource values, as in providing open space, natural beauty, recreation, scientific study, historical and archaeological resources, and education; and cultivated resource values, as in creating rich soils for agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry.
( 3 ) *Factors relevant to a proposed action's effects on the survival and quality of wetlands.* These include, but are not limited to: Public health, safety, and welfare, including water supply, quality, recharge and discharge; pollution; flood and storm hazards; and sediment and erosion; maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long term productivity of existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability, hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including recreational, scientific, and cultural uses.
[45 FR 59526, Sept. 9, 1980, as amended at 89 FR 57043, July 11, 2024]
#### Pratt v. Sandy Ridge Lands Corporation et al.

Oct. 5, 1945.

*526D. G-. Boleyn for appellant.

T. E. Moore, Jr. for appellees.

Opinion op the Court by

Stanley, Commissioner

Affirming.

The appellant, Yina Pratt, sued the appellees, Sandy Ridge Lands Corporation and an individual, alleging that she was the owner of an undivided interest in certain land and praying a partition. Her petition was dismissed upon evidence that the plaintiff had conveyed an interest which she once owned in the land and the defendants held the entire title.

The appeal was filed November 15, 1944, at which time the appellees had already filed their brief. Appellant’s failure to file a brief must be considered as a confession that the judgment is correct. At least, in its absence, we presume no error was committed and that the judgment is proper. Skaggs v. Elkhorn Coal Corporation, 297 Ky. 330, 180 S. W. 2d 88.

Judgment affirmed.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.c.

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

The President |
The White House i
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

lam pleased to provide you the annual reporting required by Executive Order 13019, Supporting
Families: Collecting Delinquent Child Support Obligations, dated September 28, 1996, |
concerning the implementation by agencies of the Executive Order and the provisions of the |
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) applicable to delinquent child support
obligations.

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has been intercepting Federal tax refund payments to
collect delinquent child support debts since 1982. The DCIA extended Treasury’s authority to
collect these debts by permitting the offset of certain Federal non-tax payments, such as
payments to Federal contractors.

In fiscal year 2017, Treasury, through its Treasury Offset Program (TOP) and in collaboration
with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), facilitated the collection of $1.8
billion in child support debts for states, territories, and families. Since the issuance of Executive
Order 13019 in 1996, this amounts to more than $37 billion in past-due child support obligations
collected through the offset of eligible Federal tax and non-tax payments owed to delinquent
child support obligors.

Treasury remains strongly committed to its successful partnership with HHS and the states to }
maximize the collection of delinquent child support obligations through the interception of }
Federal payments. We will continue to support the important goal of carrying out the provisions

of the DCIA and Executive Order 13019. j

Sincerely,
Crenn Te Maveb >

Steven T. Mnuchin

cc: The Honorable Eric Hargan

i
i
{
;
{
i
i
H
j
- 1 -

EXHIBIT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER’S MOTION TO LIFT LITIGATION 

INJUNCTION TO PERMIT RECEIVER TO VOLUNTARILY RELEASE 

SUBORDINATESECURITY INTERESTS IN 230 NORTH BROAD STREET, 

BAYFIELD, WIS. AND 441 EAST MONBO ROAD, STATESVILLE, N.C. 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Receiver, Ryan K. Stumphauzer’s Motion to 

Lift Litigation Injunction to Permit Receiver to Voluntarily Release Subordinate Security Interests 

in 230 North Broad Street, Bayfield, Wis. and 441 East Monbo Road, Statesville, N.C. [ECF No. 

___] (“Motion”), filed on November 5, 2020. In the Motion, the Receiver seeks to modify the Court’s 

Amended Order Appointing Receiver dated August 13, 2020 [ECF No. 141], so as to lift the 

litigation injunction provided for in that Order to permit the Receiver to release subordinate liens

and security interests to facilitate sales of real property located at 230 North Broad Street, Bayfield, 

WI and 441 East Monbo Road, Statesville, N.C.

The Receiver has made a sufficient and proper showing in support of the relief requested. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 370-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2020 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The litigation injunction set 

forth in the Court’s Amended Order Appointing Receiver dated August 13, 2020 [ECF No. 141] is 

hereby lifted to authorize the Receiver to take the action as set forth in the Motion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this _____ day of November, 

2020.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 370-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Calvin REEVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30119.

D.C. No. CR-00-00065-DWM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*668MEMORANDUM **

David Calvin Reevis appeals his 105-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for voluntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1112. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.

Reevis contends that his sentence must be reversed because the district court erroneously denied him a two-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). We review for clear error the district court’s decision whether to grant or deny such an adjustment.1*See United States v. Fisher,*137 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir.1998). Based on our review of the record, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred by finding that Reevis, while admitting to causing the victim’s death, had not acknowledged his criminal culpability for his actions. See *United States v. Gallant,*136 F.3d 1246, 1248 (9th Cir.1998) (affirming denial of acceptance of responsibility adjustment where appellant had expressed regret but maintained that his actions were necessary); *United States v. Doe,*155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (‘We accept the lower court’s findings of fact unless upon review we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. We reject, as unsupported, Reevis' contention that a de novo standard of review is applicable on the facts of this case. *See United States v. Gonzalez,*897 F.2d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir. 1990) (concluding that the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) mandate that appellate court apply a clearly erroneous standard when reviewing denial of acceptance of responsibility adjustment).
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

in Case C-432/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Directive 89/106/EEC - Decision 3052/95/EC - National approval procedure - Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States - Construction products)

(2006/C 10/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-432/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and N. Ruiz, advogado) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 10 October 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and E. Juhász, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

----
### §116. Repealed. May 29, 1928, ch. 901, §1, 45 Stat. 995

Section, R.S. §72, related to accounting by the Secretaries, Clerks, Sergeant at Arms, Postmasters, and Doorkeepers of Senate and House for property of the Government in their possession.
### §1721. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §441, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1380; Pub. L. 99–619, §2(b)(3), Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3491; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(k)(2)(C), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 277; Pub. L. 103–446, title XII, §1203(c)(2), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4690, authorized veterans' employment programs.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 2000, see section 199(c)(2)(B) of Pub. L. 105–220, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
July 31, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SEAN JACK SUTTON, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00548-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record 

indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 323.3 Responsibilities. ( a ) As stated in The National Plan for Emergency Preparedness, the direction of resources mobilization is a Federal responsibility. However, in the period immediately following an attack, certain geographical areas may be temporarily isolated, and State and local governments will assume responsibility for the use of resources remaining in such areas until effective Federal authority can be restored. State and local governments will not assume responsibility for resources under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency where the Federal agency is able to function.
( b ) As soon as possible after an attack and until specific national direction and guidance on the use of resources is provided, Federal, State, and local officials will determine what resources are available, to what needs they can be applied, how they are to be used, and the extent to which resources are deficient or in excess of survival needs. They will base determinations as to the relative urgency for use of resources primarily upon the importance of specific needs of defense, survival, and recovery.
### §137. Use and regulation of law library

The justices of the Supreme Court shall have free access to the law library; and they are authorized to make regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the use of the same during the sittings of the court. But such regulations shall not restrict any person authorized to take books from the Library from having access to the law library, or using the books therein in the same manner as he may be entitled to use the books of the general Library.

(R.S. §95.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §95 derived from act July 14, 1832, ch. 221, §2, 4 Stat. 579.
### §164a. Official distribution of State legislation index and digest

The Librarian of Congress is directed to have the indexes and digests authorized by section 164 of this title printed and bound for official distribution only.

(Feb. 28, 1929, ch. 367, §1, 45 Stat. 1398.)
§ 146.500 Secretary of Defense. ( a ) The Secretary of Defense may exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a covered Federal action from the prohibition whenever the Secretary determines, in writing, that such an exemption is in the national interest. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of each such written exemption to Congress immediately after making such a determination.
( b ) The Department of Defense may issue supplemental regulations to implement paragraph (a) of this section.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-042 March 14, 2000

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

SCHEDULES MEETING FOR APRIL 4 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has

scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on planning and procedures on April 4 in Rockville,

Maryland.

The subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters, including

formulating proposed positions and actions for deliberation by the full committee.

The meeting, most of which is open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B1 of the agency’s

Two White Flint building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, starting at 1:30 p.m.

Those who seek additional information or schedule updates about the meeting should contact

John Larkins, at 301-415-7360.

Other aspects of the meeting will be described in an upcoming edition of the Federal Register.

ACRS meeting notices, transcripts and letter reports are available on the internet, at

http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.

###
#### Rose McGraw et al., Appellants, v. National Liberty Insurance Company of America, Respondent.

- Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except MeCurn and Vaughan, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and for granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. (The judgment is for defendant for no cause of action in an action under a fire insurance policy. The order denies plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
#### § 122.116 Identification of manifest sheets.

When the original cargo manifest for the aircraft on which the cargo arrives is presented by the aircraft commander or its authorized agent at the port of arrival, a manifest number will be given to the aircraft entry documents by Customs. The number given shall be used by the airline to identify all copies of the transit air cargo manifest. All copies of the manifest shall be correctly numbered before cargo will be released from the port of arrival as transit air cargo.
•'ff/1. 

INDIMUIOIPARTMENT OF TfUINSPORTATION 

Driving Indiana's Economic Growth 

100 North Senate Avenue 

Room N758 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 

PHONE: (317) 232-5533 

FAX: (317) 232-0238 Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Governor 

Michael B. Cllne, Commissioner ;. 

August 24,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

Please accept this letter from the Indiana Department of Transportation as support for a grant 

proposal by the Evansville Regional Airport. This proposal has been submitted to the 

U.S. Department of Transportation for the establishment of a new scheduled commercial air 

service between Evansville, Indiana and Baltimore / Washington, D.C, 

The proposal has been submitted under the Small Community Air Service Development Program 

and would serve as a re-establishment of commercial interstate airline service to this vital part of 

Indiana. This re-establishment of scheduled interstate airline service will not only assist in the 

economic development of this community, but will be of great benefit to the state of Indiana as a 

whole. 

As Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation, I respectfully request your support 

of this worthwhile venture and approval of the Evansville Regional Airport proposal. 

en c73 

Sincerely, 

Michael B. Cline 

Commissioner 

Indiana Department of Transportation 

Cc: Robert F. Tally, Indiana Division Administrator, Federal Higliway Administration 

www.in.gov/dot/ 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 

Evansville Regional Airport - Small Community Air Service Development Grant - August 2010 30
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00077-CV

In re Waterfall Gallery of Austin, L.P.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: May 9, 2007
§ 296.31 Reimbursement of claim expenses. ( a ) FEMA will reimburse claimants for the reasonable costs they incur in providing documentation requested by the Claims Office. FEMA will also reimburse claimants for the reasonable costs they incur in providing appraisals, or other third-party opinions that the Claims Office deems necessary to determine the amount of the claim. FEMA will not reimburse claimants for the cost of appraisals or other third-party opinions not deemed necessary by the Claims Office.
( b ) FEMA will provide a lump sum payment for incidental expenses incurred in claims preparation to claimants that are awarded compensatory damages under the Act after a properly executed Release and Certification Form has been returned to the Claims Office. The amount of the lump sum payment will be the greater of $150 or 5% of the Act's compensatory damages and insurance proceeds recovered by the claimant for Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire related injuries (not including the lump sum payment or monies reimbursed under the Act for the purchase of flood insurance) but will not exceed $25,000. Subrogation claimants and claimants whose only Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire related loss is for flood insurance premiums will not be eligible.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

Home Page:www.nrc.gov/OPA/

No. 96-96 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, July 8, 1996)

NEW NRC INSPECTOR GENERAL BEGINS DUTIES

Hubert T. Bell Jr. has begun his duties as the new Inspector

General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. Bell was administered the oath of office today by NRC

Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson. Others present at the private

ceremony included NRC Commissioners Kenneth C. Rogers and Greta

J. Dicus; senior NRC staff executives; Mr. Bell's wife, Satwant;

their four children, Nayoja, Nileah, Andrew and Anthony; and his

sister-in-law, Prem Kaur.

A graduate of Alabama State University and a 28-year veteran

of the Secret Service, Mr. Bell was nominated by President

Clinton and confirmed by the Senate. He succeeds David Williams,

who was named last year as Inspector General of the Social

Security Administration. Leo J. Norton Jr., who has been acting

NRC Inspector General, recently retired from Federal service.

At the time of his nomination for the NRC post, Mr. Bell was

Executive Director of Work Force Planning and Diversity

Management for the Secret Service, and earlier had been Assistant

Director of the agency's Office of Inspection.

Other Secret Service assignments included those of Assistant

Director of the Office of Protective Operations; Deputy Assistant

Director of the Office of Investigations; Agent in Charge of the

Vice Presidential Protective Division; and Agent in Charge of the

Honolulu, Hawaii, field office.

####
§ 3830.3 Who may locate mining claims? Persons qualified to locate mining claims or sites under this part include: ( a ) United States citizens who have reached the age of discretion under the law of their State of residence;
( b ) Legal immigrants who have filed an application for citizenship with the proper Federal agency;
( c ) Business entities organized under the laws of any state, including but not limited to corporations and partnerships; or
( d ) Duly constituted and appointed agents acting on behalf of locators qualified under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section.