alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4033. Designation of Flood Insurance Advocate

#### (a) In general

The Administrator shall designate a Flood Insurance Advocate to advocate for the fair treatment of policy holders under the National Flood Insurance Program and property owners in the mapping of flood hazards, the identification of risks from flood, and the implementation of measures to minimize the risk of flood.

#### (b) Duties and responsibilities

The duties and responsibilities of the Flood Insurance Advocate designated under subsection (a) shall be to—

(1) educate property owners and policyholders under the National Flood Insurance Program on—

(A) individual flood risks;

(B) flood mitigation;

(C) measures to reduce flood insurance rates through effective mitigation;

(D) the flood insurance rate map review and amendment process; and

(E) any changes in the flood insurance program as a result of any newly enacted laws (including this Act);

(2) assist policy holders under the National Flood Insurance Program and property owners to understand the procedural requirements related to appealing preliminary flood insurance rate maps and implementing measures to mitigate evolving flood risks;

(3) assist in the development of regional capacity to respond to individual constituent concerns about flood insurance rate map amendments and revisions;

(4) coordinate outreach and education with local officials and community leaders in areas impacted by proposed flood insurance rate map amendments and revisions; and

(5) aid potential policy holders under the National Flood Insurance Program in obtaining and verifying accurate and reliable flood insurance rate information when purchasing or renewing a flood insurance policy.

(Pub. L. 113–89, §24, Mar. 21, 2014, 128 Stat. 1030.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(E), is Pub. L. 113–89, Mar. 21, 2014, 128 Stat. 1020, known as the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2014 Amendment note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, and not as part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 4005 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RAGEN
MACKENZIE'S MARCH 26, 1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                           2,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,899
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            515,067
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                            5,039
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            147,509
<PP&E>                                           1,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 794,942
<SHORT-TERM>                                    52,375
<PAYABLES>                                     437,600
<REPOS-SOLD>                                    43,600
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             138,361
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   794,942
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               15,191
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            18,343
<COMMISSIONS>                                   16,197
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    2,440
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,999
<COMPENSATION>                                  20,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,561
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,294
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
        

</TABLE>
#### Powers *v.*The State.

August 19, 1912.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge J. B. Park. Morgan superior court. April 30, 1912.

*Rogers & Knox,*for plaintiff in error. *T. 8. Felder, attorney-general,*and *J. F. Poille, solicitor-general,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

1. The evidence, though in some respects unsatisfactory, was sufficient to authorize a conviction.

2. On the trial of a father charged with rape of his daughter, letters ' from the accused to the daughter, written while incarcerated on that charge, stating that his freedom depended on her action, and pleading for the withdrawal of the charge against him, and which contained no protestation of innocence or denial of the ehai'ge, tended to coi’roborate the testimoxxy of the daughter, and were admissible.

3. The circumstances attendixxg the arrest of the accused, viz., that he resisted arrest until informed that the officer had a warrant for him, when he submitted without further resistance, though inadmissible in evidence, were not prejudicial to the defendaixt.

4. “It is no valid ground of criticism upon a chax'ge, eoi'rect and proper in itself, that it fails to state some other x'ule or principle of law pertinent to the issues of the case.” *Jackson*v. *State,*134 *Ga.*473 (68 S. E. 71).

5. In the absence of a written request, though it may be proper to give a cautionary instruction in an appropriate case, an omission to do so is not ground for a new trial. *Johnson*v. *State,*128 *Ga.*102 (57 S. E. 53).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Sill, J., dissenting.*
Seminoe
Reservoir

Medicine Bow

LARAMIE

GE 1/4 Mile Avoidance Area o 10 20 40 60 80 100

Miles

Map 2-46
Historic Trails
Alternatives 1 & 2

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Federal Invention Available for Licensing and Intent To 
Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability and intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the table grape variety designated 
``Scarlet Royal'' is available for licensing and that the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to 
grant to the California Table Grape Commission of Fresno, California, 
an exclusive license to this variety.

DATES: Comments must be received within ninety (90) calendar days of 
the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights to 
this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as the California Table Grape 
Commission of Fresno, California, has submitted a complete and 
sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license 
will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license 
may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this 
published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written 
evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license 
would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 
CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-28057 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation And Order For Dismissal -1-

SIDNEY J. COHEN, ESQ., State Bar No. 39023

SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

427 Grand Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610

Telephone: (510) 893-6682

Attorneys for Plaintiff

YVONNE W. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YVONNE W. WHITE

Plaintiff,

v. 

DUGGAN’S FUNERAL

SERVICE, A California

Corporation; and DOES 1-25,

Inclusive, 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. C 08-02782 EMC

Civil Rights

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

FOR DISMISSAL

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41

Plaintiff Yvonne W. White and defendant Duggan’s Funeral Service, 

A California Corporation, by and through their attorneys of record, file this

Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 4, 2008 .

Plaintiff and defendants have entered into a “Mutual Release And

Settlement Agreement” which settles all aspects of the lawsuit against all

defendants. The “Mutual Release And Settlement Agreement” is incorporated by

reference herein as if set forth in full. Plaintiff and defendant stipulate to the

court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the “Mutual Release And Settlement

Agreement.”

Plaintiff moves to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit against defendant.

Defendant, who has answered the complaint, agrees to the dismissal with

prejudice.

Case 3:08-cv-02782-EMC Document 26 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation And Order For Dismissal -2-

This case is not a class action, and no receiver has been appointed.

This Stipulation and Order may be signed in counterparts, and facsimile or

electronically transmitted signatures shall be as valid and binding as original

signatures.

Wherefore, plaintiff and defendant, by and through their attorneys of

record, so stipulate.

Date: 7/29/10 SIDNEY J. COHEN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

/s/ Sidney J. Cohen

By 

 Sidney J. Cohen

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

DATE: 7/29/2010 MIDDLEBROOK, KAISER,

HENGESBACH & DAWSON

/s/ Eric S. Ritigstein

By________________________________

 Mark L. Dawson or Eric S. Ritigstein

 Attorneys for Defendant 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO 

ORDERED:

The lawsuit against defendant is dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall

retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ “Mutual Release And Settlement

Agreement.”

Date: ___________________________

Honorable Edward M. Chen

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02782-EMC Document 26 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.40 Termination of program participation. ( a ) A sponsor shall terminate an exchange visitor's participation in its program when the exchange visitor: ( 1 ) Fails to pursue the activities for which he or she was admitted to the United States;
( 2 ) Is unable to continue, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to these regulations;
( 3 ) Violates the Exchange Visitor Program regulations and/or the sponsor's rules governing the program, if, in the sponsor's opinion, termination is warranted;
( 4 ) Willfully fails to maintain the insurance coverage required under § 62.14 of these regulations; or
( b ) An exchange visitor's participation in the Exchange Visitor Program is subject to termination when he or she engages in unauthorized employment. Upon establishing such violation, the Department of State shall terminate the exchange visitor's participation in the Exchange Visitor Program.
exv10w1xa2y






EXHIBIT 10.1(a2) 




RATE APPLICABLE TO

PARTICIPATING DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS UNDER THE

DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN



Effective for the 2011 plan year, the Board of Directors and its Compensation Committee has
approved an applicable interest rate for the Directors and Executives Deferred Compensation Plan of
11.5%. That rate is a reduction from the 12.25% rate in effect for 2010, and applies prospectively
to certain participants, including all participants who presently are directors or executive
officers of the registrant. Rates generally are subject to annual approval by the Committee, but
generally remain in effect until changed. The new interest rate, within the context of the entire
Plan, has been established at a level intended to provide both retention and long-term non-compete
incentives.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A0 70 1 . J AMES W . HOOD v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 1

, J am es Ho o d en t ered neg o t i at ed g u i lt y p l eas t o o n e co u n t each o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n an d s tat u t o ry rap e. Aft er t h i s Co u rt v acat ed Ho o d ’ s s en t en ce fo r t h e ch i ld

m o les t at i o n co nv i ct i on , s ee Ho o d v. S t a t e , 3 4 3 Ga. Ap p

. 2 30

, 2 3 4 (1 ) (8 0 7 SE2 d 1 0 )

(2 0 1 7), he wi t hd rew h is g u i l ty p l ea t o t h at ch arg e, s ee Ho o d v. S t a t e , 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p.

6 6 5 , 6 6 5 -6 6 6 (8 3 2 SE2 d 6 5 2 ) (2 0 1 9 ), an d t h e t ri al co urt g ran t ed t he St at e’ s m o t i o n

fo r an o rd er o f n o ll e p ro s eq u i as t o t h at ch arg e i n Sep t em b er 2 0 1 9

.
In J u n e 2 0 2 0, H o o d fi l ed a “ M o t i o n fo r In effect i v e A s s i s t an ce o f Co u n s el ,” in

wh i ch h e co n t en d ed t h at h i s ap p el l at e co u n s el ren d e r e d i n effect i v e as s i s tan ce i n a

p ri o r ap p eal b y fai l i n g to ch al l en g e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s req u es t t o wi t h d raw

h i s g u il t y p l ea t o s t at u t o ry rap e. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n , an d t h is ap p eal

fo l l o w ed . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Reg ard l es s o f i t s n o m en cl at u re, Ho od ’ s J u n e 2 02 0 m ot i o n es s en t i al l y s eek s to

v acat e h i s ju d g m en t of co n vi ct i o n

. Ho wev er, “ a pet i ti o n t o v acat e or m o d i fy a ju d g m en t o f co n v i ct i o n is n o t an ap p ro p ri at e rem ed y in a cri m i nal cas e.” 1 Ha r p er v.

S t a t e , 2 8 6 Ga. 2 1 6

, 2 1 8 (1 ) (6 8 6 SE2 d 7 8 6 ) (2 0 0 9). An y ap p eal fr o m a n o rd er

d en y i n g o r d i s m i s s i n g s uch a pet i t i o n o r m o ti o n m u s t b e d i s m i s sed

. See Ro b er t s v.

S t a t e , 2 8 6 Ga. 5 3 2

, 5 3 2 (6 9 0 SE2 d 1 5 0) (2 0 1 0 ); H a r p er , 2 8 6 Ga. at 2 1 8 (2 ).

1 A p et i t i o n fo r a wri t of hab eas co rp us is t h e p ro p er v eh i cl e fo r rai s i n g an i s s u e

t h at co u l d n ot h av e b een rai s ed i n a p ri o r ap p eal

, s u ch as a c l a i m o f i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o f ap p el l at e co u n s el

. Mi l l i ken v. S t ewa r t

, 27 6 Ga. 7 1 2

, 7 1 3 (5 8 3 SE2 d 3 0 ) (2 0 0 3); Ba

p ti s t e v. S t a t e , 2 6 2 Ga. Ap p . 7 1, 7 1 (5 8 5 SE2 d 9 2 ) (2 0 0 3 ). December 15, 2020Co n s eq u en t l y , t h i s ap peal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 12/15/2020
§ 521.31 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the Director, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the Director in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (i.e., the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements) charged in the complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of such programs;
( 8 ) Whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees of agents is imputed to the defendant, the extent to which the defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the defendant assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a State, directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the Director from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76027-76028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27807]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4899]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee will conduct an open meeting 
between 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 in Room 6319, at U.S. 
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC. The 
purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 49th Session of the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) Subcommittee on Fire 
Protection to be held at the IMO Headquarters in London, England from 
January 24-28, 2005.
    The primary matters to be considered include:

--Large passenger ship safety.
--Performance testing and approval standards for fire safety systems.
--Review of the 2000 HSC Code and amendments to the DSC Code and the 
1994 HSC Code.
--Amendments to Res.A.653 (16) relating to the preparation of specimens 
of sealants and mastics.
--Amendments to resolution A.754 (18) relating to performance criteria 
for fire doors.
--Review of the fire protection provisions of the LHNS guidelines.
--Performance standards for evacuation guidance systems.
--Recommendations on evacuation analysis for new and existing passenger 
ships.
--Analysis of fire records.
--Development of provisions for gas fuelled ships.
--Consideration of IACS unified interpretations.

    Members of the public may attend these meetings up to the seating 
capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by 
writing: Chief, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Commandant 
(G-MSE-4), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20593-0001, by calling: Mr. R. Eberly at (202) 267-1861, 
or by visiting the following World Wide Web site: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mse4/stdimofp.htm.


[[Page 76028]]


    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Clayton L. Diamond,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 04-27807 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
Attachment A - Summary of Relevant Economic Feasibility ($/ton) Control Costs 

Avg. Expected Values 

($/ton) 

Limiting/Marginal values 

($/ton) 

Reference Regulatory Body/Rule SO2 NOx SO2 NOx Comments FR Notice 6JULY05 Final Rule 

BART 100 - 1000 100 - 1000 70 FR 39135 

BART 281 - 1296 70 FR 39135 Table 3 BART 919 70 FR 39133 BART 

Guidelines disparagingly reference "thin commenting on the need to exceed Munreasonableness. 

70 FR 25210 CAIR CAIR 1300 Estimated Marginal cost 2009 FR Notice 5MAY04 Proposed Rule 

BART(proposed rule) 200-1000 

BART proposed lists this as values for which is still assumed, or .1 to .15 lb/Mfinal to give states flexibility to require bypasses aren't BART, only 100% scru

BART(proposed rule) 

0.2 lb/MMBtu for NOx is assumed reasome sources may need SCR to get thidiscretion of the cost vs. visibility valu

Midwest RPO Report Referencing CAIR 

CAIR(using IPM) 1000 1500 

CAIR ( 2009 in 1999$) 900 2400 CAIR ( 2015 in 1999$) 1800 3000 CAIR (depending on Nat'l emissions) 1200 - 3000 1400- 2100 This was modeled with TRUM (Techn

Updating Model) to develop the margi

Kammer EPA Decision Kammer Decision > 1000 > 1000 LADCO Midwest RPO Boiler Analysis LADCO/Midwest RPO 1240 - 3822 607 - 4493 MANE-VU BART Control Assessment MANE-VU 200 - 500 200 - 1500 Bowers vs. SWAPCA Bowers vs. SWAPCA 300 300 1000 1000 954-1134 was ruled too much, in favor 

did consider incremental value. Section

WRAP Trading Program Methodology 

WRAP 3000 

EPA - Referenced by Wrap 

References EPA-600S\7-90-018. Low $500-3000/ton, High is over $3000/ton 

The dollars per ton estimates cited above were obtained from BART guidance, documentation of similar regulatory and relevant court decisions. These materials indicate that most EPA sanctioned documents, including the final BAR

support an average expected reasonable cost range of $1,300 to $1,800 per ton of NOx removed and a range of $1,0

SO2 removed. The BART presumptive limits were set based on cost effective controls that were on average less tha

example, the presumptive SO2 limit was established based on an average cost effectiveness of less than $1,000/ton. 

extends into RPO, WRAP and other regional planning documentation, the cost ranges become more variable and diease of comparison, the federally established ranges for NOx and SO2 were used as a BART cost threshold basis.