alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Country-Wide Insurance Company, Respondent, and Eun Kyu Park et al., Appellants.

[717 NYS2d 132]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered June 23, 1999, which granted petitioner insurer’s application for a permanent stay of arbitration of respondents’ uninsured motorist claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Arbitration of respondents-appellants’ uninsured motorist claims was properly stayed since respondents-appellants did not comply with the condition precedent to coverage under the hit-and-run portion of the uninsured motorist endorsement of the subject insurance policy, which required notice within 90 days of the accident (see, *Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Mancuso,*202 AD2d 428; *Matter of Home Indem. Co. v Messana,*139 AD2d 513) and respondents provided no excuse for such failure (see, *id.).*We note that even if, as respondents now contend, the subject policy permitted notice to the insurer of their uninsured motorist claims “as soon [after the initial 90-day period] as practicable,” it would be clear that such notice was not given; it was evident in the immediate aftermath of the hit-and-run accident that the hit-and-run vehicle and driver would not be identified since no information respecting either had been gathered. The fact that the petitioner insurer may have received some notice of the accident through respondents’ no-fault claim does not vitiate the breach of the policy requirement *(see, Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Velasquez,*211 AD2d 636; *Matter of Wausau Ins. Co. v Bartz,*197 AD2d 627; *Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v Madera,*189 AD2d 570). A different result is not required because respondents are not the policyholders. There is no claim that respondents, who reside at the same address as the policyholders, did not have access to the policy *(see, Matter of American Home Assur. Co. v Ceballos,*224 AD2d 612, *lv denied*88 NY2d 809).

We have considered respondents’ other arguments and find *176them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 74503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27307]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES:  Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
13, 2005.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Estuary Habitat Restoration Project 
Application; Eng Form 6019-R; OMB Control Number 0710-0014.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of Respondents: 100.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 100.
    Average Burden Per Response: 10 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The Corps will solicit applications for estuary 
habitat restoration projects under section 104 of the Estuary 
Restoration Act 2000. Requested information will include proposed 
project location, types and acreage of habitat to be restored, and 
project description including restoration techniques, project goals and 
expected benefits, monitoring plan, costs, and other supporting 
information. Project applications may be submitted either 
electronically or in paper format. This information is needed to select 
projects for funding.
    Affected Public: State, local, or tribal government and not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondents Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jacqueline Zeiher.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESCD/Information Management 
Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.

    Dated: December 6, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-27307 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
### §294. General provisions

#### (a) Collaboration

To be eligible to receive assistance under this part, an academic institution shall use such assistance in collaboration with 2 or more disciplines.

#### (b) Activities

An entity shall use assistance under this part to carry out innovative demonstration projects for strategic workforce supplementation activities as needed to meet national goals for interdisciplinary, community-based linkages. Such assistance may be used consistent with this part—

(1) to develop and support training programs;

(2) for faculty development;

(3) for model demonstration programs;

(4) for the provision of stipends for fellowship trainees;

(5) to provide technical assistance; and

(6) for other activities that will produce outcomes consistent with the purposes of this part.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §750, as added Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §103, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3541.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 294, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §761, as added Pub. L. 102–408, title I, §102, Oct. 13, 1992, 106 Stat. 2045; amended Pub. L. 103–43, title XX, §2014(e), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 217, authorized grants for traineeships in health professions fields experiencing severe shortages of health professionals, prior to the general amendment of this part by Pub. L. 105–392.

Another prior section 294, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §727, as added Oct. 12, 1976, Pub. L. 94–484, title IV, §401(b)(3), 90 Stat. 2257; amended Dec. 19, 1977, Pub. L. 95–215, §4(e)(1), 91 Stat. 1506, stated purpose of and authorized appropriations for Federal program of student loan insurance, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 102–408. See sections 292 and 292p of this title.

Another prior section 294, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §740, as added Sept. 24, 1963, Pub. L. 88–129, §2(b), 77 Stat. 170; amended Oct. 13, 1964, Pub. L. 88–654, §1(a), (b), 78 Stat. 1086; Oct. 22, 1965, Pub. L. 89–290, §§2(b), 4(a), (f)(1), (2), 79 Stat. 1056 to 1058; Nov. 2, 1966, Pub. L. 89–709, §3(a), (b), 80 Stat. 1103; Nov. 3, 1966, Pub. L. 89–751, §5(c)(1), 80 Stat. 1232; Aug. 16, 1968, Pub. L. 90–490, title I §121(a)(1), (2), (5)(B), 82 Stat. 777, 778; Nov. 18, 1971, Pub. L. 92–157, title I, §105(e)(1), (4), (f)(2), 85 Stat. 451; Aug. 23, 1974, Pub. L. 93–385, §2(b), 88 Stat. 741; Apr. 22, 1976, Pub. L. 94–278, title XI, 1105(b), 90 Stat. 416; Oct. 12, 1976, Pub. L. 94–484, title IV, §402, 90 Stat. 2266, which related to loan agreements for the establishment of student loan funds, was transferred to section 294m of this title.

A prior section 750 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 293n of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–392.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 15, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00484-CV

IN RE SPRINT SAND AND CLAY, LLC, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 11th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-66557 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On June 18, 2019, relator Sprint Sand and Clay, LLC filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Supp.); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Kristen Brauchle Hawkins, presiding judge of the 11th District Court of Harris 
2 

County, to vacate a portion of her order dated June 11, 2019, which grants in part 

and denies in part plaintiffs’ motions to compel. Plaintiffs are the real parties-ininterest, John Earl Ellisor, et al., in the underlying lawsuit. Relator is one of several 

named defendants in the suit.

On July 24, 2019, real parties in interest/ plaintiffs filed a letter with this court, 

stating that they had filed a notice of non-suit of their suit against relator and, as a 

result, this mandamus proceeding is now moot. Enclosed with the letter is a copy of 

the motion for nonsuit of the claims against relator, with a file-stamp showing that 

the motion was filed in the underlying case on July 24, 2019. This motion states that 

real parties in interest/plaintiffs wish to dismiss all claims against relator. A notice 

of nonsuit is effective without a court order immediately when the notice is filed. 

Texas Dep’t of Aging & Disability Servs. v. Cannon, 453 S.W.3d 411, 418 n.13 (Tex. 

2015). 

On July 31, 2019, real parties in interest filed a motion asking this court to 

dismiss this mandamus proceeding, arguing that relator’s petition for mandamus 

relief is moot because they have non-suited all their claims against relator. 

We GRANT the motion and DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

as moot. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant.
Yj,
Zi

: Cs sf Vv

a

@ 2 Y ar y
“yy YY Yfy Kip,
“WY GLE

Closed

Miles

Map 2-44

OHV Designations
Alternative 4
§ 191.1 Declaration of hostile action. ( a ) The Secretary of State from time to time shall declare when and where individuals in the civil or uniformed services of the United States, or a citizen or resident alien of the United States rendering personal services to the United States abroad similar to the service of a civil officer or employee of the United States, have been placed in captive status because of hostile action abroad directed against the United States and occurring or continuing between November 4, 1979, and such date as may be declared by the President under section 101(2)(A) of the Hostage Relief Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-449, hereafter “the Act”) or January 1, 1983, whichever is later. Each such declaration shall be published in the Federal Register.
( b ) The Secretary of State upon his or her own initiative, or upon application under § 191.2 shall determine which individuals in captive status as so declared shall be considered hostages eligible for benefits under the Act. The Secretary shall also determine who is eligible under the Act for benefits as a member of a family or household of a hostage. The determination of the Secretary shall be final, but any interested person may request reconsideration on the basis of information not considered at the time of original determination. The criteria for determination are set forth in sections 101 and 205 of the Act, and in these regulations.
#### Williamson *v.*Edwards.

April 12, 1912.

Complaint. Before oudge Gilbert. Taylor superior court. June 13, 1911.

*R. S. Foy*and *C. ~W. Foy,*for plaintiff.

*Carson & McCutchen,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

There was no contention that any error of law was committed upon the trial. There was evidence to authorize the verdict. Neither the alleged newly discovered evidence, nor the alleged misconduct of certain jurors, relatively to both of which there was conflicting evidence on the hearing of the motion, required the grant of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 31.1


I, Michael G. Cherkasky, certify that

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kroll Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
      particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
      prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of
      the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

   a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 13, 2003



By: /s/ Michael G. Cherkasky
   ----------------------------
   Michael G. Cherkasky,
   Chief Executive Officer
#### § 240.15 Notice.

Any communication to USAID pursuant to this Guarantee shall be in writing in the English language, shall refer to the Ukraine Loan Guarantee Number inscribed on the Eligible Note and shall be complete on the day it shall be actually received by USAID at the Office of Development Credit, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-0030. Other addresses may be substituted for the above upon the giving of notice of such substitution to each Noteholder by first class mail at the address set forth in the Note Register.
#### § 234.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of this Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
November 2 , 2015

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

Your new monthly format released in October in your website entitled “Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help” is viewed as an improvement. Adding to the cumulative data through September

on volume and RINs in the table entitled “Total Production and Fuel Type,” I added the September rate for the balance of 2015 to estimate the totals for the year. This is, of course

, tentative but represents
the most recent data available

. Table 1 reflects th e EPA data for 2014 and my derivation for 2015 . The ratios of RINs to volume provide the means to translate proposed Renewable Fuel Standards to RINs.

In Table 2 are the RIN balance sheets for D3, D4, D5 and D6 for 2013, 2014, estimates for 2015 and proj ections to 2017 with the EPA’s proposal. The assumptions for RIN generation are presented in the
footnotes.

A l ternative balance sheets for 2014 to 2017 are presented in Table 3 . The assumptions , also presented in the footnotes, are as follows: (1) The D3 RINs continue as generated in Table 2, (2) The mandates for D4 RINs will increase to the actual generation in 2014 and 2015, increase to 3000 million in 2016 and 3500 million in 2017, (3) The mandates for D6 will align with the statutory mandates of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) in 2014 to 2016. Other assumptions are noted in Table 3.

My proposal reflects the intent of EISA to expand the role of renewable fuels based mostly on D6 but
with minimum levels for D4 . The biodiesel industry has demonstrated the ability to generate RINs above the mandate resulting in surplus RINs which were used in the carry

- ins for D5 and D6 (Table2). The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated in August 2015 that the capacity of the industry was 2087 million gallons . However, the EIA only reports production of biodiesel made from methyl ester (Biodiesel at EV 1.5 in Table 1) . In August (latest month for the EIA data), the EPA reported production of D4 at 185 million gallons compared to the EIA’s estimate of 123 million gallons. The EPA’s estimate is 50 percent higher than the EIA’s. This suggests that the capacity of the biodiesel industry is actually about 3130 million gallons (1.5 X 2087) capable of generating 48 00 million RIN gallons

. The conclusion is clear. The biodiesel industry can easily generate 3000 million RINs in
2016 and 3500 million RINs in 2017.

Since the Advanced Biofuel Sector (D5) failed to meet the mandate in 2013, 2014 and likely in 2015, it

w ould seem that this mandate should be attenuated to the level estimated to be attained in 2015. The carryover assistance available from D4 in 2013 would provide some comfort through 2016.

The scenario advanced in this communication for Renewable Fuel (D6 ) in Table 3 would also follow the statutory commitment of EISA and provide a stable level of RIN carry

- ins

.

Sincerely,

John (Jake) Ferris

Professor Emeritus Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics Michigan State University
§ 19.6-2 Qualifying court order. ( a ) To be valid for purposes of this section, a court order must be found to be “qualified” by PER/ER/RET acting for the Secretary of State. A qualifying court order must— ( 1 ) Be consistent with the terms of the Act and applicable regulations;
( 2 ) Not direct payment of an amount in excess of the maximum amount authorized to be paid by the relevant regulation;
( 3 ) Direct that payments be made to an eligible beneficiary from a principal's Foreign Service retirement benefit or survivor benefit. If a court directs or implies that a principal, rather than the Secretary of State or the Government, make the payments, the order will not be considered qualified unless the principal does not object during the 30-day notice period provided under § 19.6-6;
( 4 ) Define the amount to be paid to a beneficiary in way so that it can be readily calculated from information in the normal files of the Department;
( 5 ) Not make payment contingent upon events other than those on which other payments from the Fund are based such as age, marital status and school attendance; and
( 6 ) Not be in conflict with any previously issued court order which remains valid.
( b ) No apportionment of annuity to a beneficiary under § 19.6-1(a) (1) or (6) shall exceed the net annuity of the principal. The net annuity is computed by excluding from the gross annuity the amounts which are: ( 1 ) Owed by the individual to the United States;
( 2 ) Deducted for health benefits premiums pursuant to section 8906 of Title 5, United States Code;
( 3 ) Deducted for life insurance premiums under the Government Life Insurance Program;
( 4 ) Owed due to overpayment of annuity;
( 5 ) Properly withheld for Federal income tax purposes, if amounts withheld are not greater than they would be if the individual claimed all dependents to which he/she was entitled.
[46 FR 12958, Feb. 19, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 46 FR 18970, Mar. 27, 1981]
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 10

- 00436

- CV

NAVID, INC. AND NADE R

DARYAPAYMA APPELLANTS

V.

INLAND WESTERN EULES S

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “ Appellants' Motion To Dismiss .” It is the court = s

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Costs of th e appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: June 30 , 2011
### §16471. Consumer privacy and unfair trade practices

#### (a) Privacy

The Federal Trade Commission may issue rules protecting the privacy of electric consumers from the disclosure of consumer information obtained in connection with the sale or delivery of electric energy to electric consumers.

#### (b) Slamming

The Federal Trade Commission may issue rules prohibiting the change of selection of an electric utility except with the informed consent of the electric consumer or if approved by the appropriate State regulatory authority.

#### (c) Cramming

The Federal Trade Commission may issue rules prohibiting the sale of goods and services to an electric consumer unless expressly authorized by law or the electric consumer.

#### (d) Rulemaking

The Federal Trade Commission shall proceed in accordance with section 553 of title 5 when prescribing a rule under this section.

#### (e) State authority

If the Federal Trade Commission determines that a State's regulations provide equivalent or greater protection than the provisions of this section, such State regulations shall apply in that State in lieu of the regulations issued by the Commission under this section.

#### (f) Definitions

For purposes of this section:

#### (1) State regulatory authority

The term "State regulatory authority" has the meaning given that term in section 796(21) of title 16.

#### (2) Electric consumer and electric utility

The terms "electric consumer" and "electric utility" have the meanings given those terms in section 2602 of title 16.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title XII, §1287, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 981.)