alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency response

(a) In consultation with the Administrator of General Services, the Archivist of the United States, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Director shall periodically review selected agency information resources management activities to ascertain the efficiency and effectiveness of such activities to improve agency performance and the accomplishment of agency missions.

(b) Each agency having an activity reviewed under subsection (a) shall, within 60 days after receipt of a report on the review, provide a written plan to the Director describing steps (including milestones) to—

(1) be taken to address information resources management problems identified in the report; and

(2) improve agency performance and the accomplishment of agency missions.

(c) Comparable Treatment.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director shall treat or review a rule or order prescribed or proposed by the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection on the same terms and conditions as apply to any rule or order prescribed or proposed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

(Added Pub. L. 104–13, §2, May 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 181; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1100D(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2111.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3513, added Pub. L. 96–511, §2(a), Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2822; amended Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §107(b)(27), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2291, related to periodic review of agency activities by Director and report of review and agency response to it prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 104–13.

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–203 added subsec. (c).

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1995, except as otherwise provided, see section 4(a) of Pub. L. 104–13, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title.
### §1115. Redemption of stock

For the purpose of computing the amount for which certificates of value shall be redeemable under section 746 of this title, the series B preferred stock and the common stock conveyed to the Secretary under section 1107 1 of this title shall be deemed to be without fair market value unless in a proceeding brought under section 1105(a)(4) of this title the special court shall have determined that such securities had a value and shall have entered a judgment against the United States for that value. In such an event, the securities shall for purposes of section 746 of this title be deemed to have that value found by the special court.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, §1167(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 686.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1107 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 99–509, title IV, §4033(c)(1)(C)(i)(I), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1908.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of subsec. (b) of section 1167 of Pub. L. 97–35. Subsec. (a) of section 1167 amended section 743 of this title. Subsec. (c) of section 1167, which was set out as subsec. (b) of this section and which provided that the clerk of the special court convey to the Secretary certain series B preferred stock and common stock of Conrail on deposit with the court, and authorized the Secretary to hold and exercise all rights to such Conrail securities, was repealed by Pub. L. 99–509, title IV, §4033(c)(1)(C)(i)(IV), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1908.

1 See References in Text note below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         11,236
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,213,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                   247,500
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         323,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,832,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,167,905
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    5,788,180
<COMMON>                                       9,875,941
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,832,026
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               634,603
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  486,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               77,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             84,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                146,654
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            146,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   146,654
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.09)


</TABLE>
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04285**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04285\04285_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04285\04285_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04285\04285_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04285\04285_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04285\Certification Statment Plant ID 04285.pdf Plant certification statement x 04285\Supplemental Documents\04285_Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04285\Supplemental Documents\04285_Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04285\Supplemental Documents\04285_Map-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04285\Supplemental Documents\04285_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04285\04285_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04285\04285_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
KPMGLLP

Suite 2000 355 South Grand Avenue LosAngeles, CA 90071-1568

Independent Accountants'Report

The Board of Directors American HondaFinance Corporation

Members of the Board:

We haveexamined management's assertion about American Honda FinanceCorporation's (the Company's) compliance with the minimumservicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association ofAmerica Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers,as they relate to the servicing of retail automobile loan contracts, asof and for the year ended March 31, 2005 included in the accompanyingmanagement's assertion. The minimum servicing standards notconsidered by the Company to be applicable to the servicing of retailautomobile loans include procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section I –Custodial Bank Accounts, procedures 1, 2, 3, and 4 of section III– Disbursements and procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section V –Mortgage Loan Accounting. Management is responsible for theCompany's compliance with the applicable minimum servicingstandards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement's assertion about the Company's compliance basedon our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance withstandards established by the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants and, accordingly, including examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company's compliance with the minimumservicing standards and performing such other procedures as weconsidered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, American Honda Finance Corporation has complied, inall material respects, with the aforementioned minimum servicingstandards as of and for the year ended March 31, 2005.

/s/   KPMG LLP

June 7, 2005

----
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Rand Logistics Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


March 31, 2006                                 By: /s/ Laurence S. Levy
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Laurence S. Levy
                                                   Chairman of the Board and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3090 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyromellitic Dianhydride (PMDA). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2005 

Mr. HOBSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyromellitic Dianhydride 

(PMDA). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.14 of sub5 chapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Sched6 ule of the United States, relating to Pyromellitic 

7 Dianhydride (CAS # 89–32–7) is amended by striking 12/ 

8 31/2006 and inserting 12/31/2009. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
2 

HR 3090 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 8.29 Homeownership programs (sections 235(i) and 235(j), Turnkey III and Indian housing mutual self-help programs).

Any housing units newly constructed or rehabilitated for purchase or single family (including semi-attached and attached) units to be constructed or rehabilitated in a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance shall be made accessible upon request of the prospective buyer if the nature of the handicap of an expected occupant so requires. In such case, the buyer shall consult with the seller or builder/sponsor regarding the specific design features to be provided. If accessibility features selected at the option of the homebuyer are ones covered by the standards prescribed by § 8.32, those features shall comply with the standards prescribed in § 8.32. The buyer shall be permitted to depart from particular specifications of these standards in order to accommodate his or her specific handicap. The cost of making a facility accessible under this paragraph may be included in the mortgage amount within the allowable mortgage limits, where applicable. To the extent such costs exceed allowable mortgage limits, they may be passed on to the prospective homebuyer, subject to maximum sales price limitations (see 24 CFR 235.320.)
### Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, Oil Shale Geodatabase

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds181

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
§ 3.225 Educational institutions eligible to submit transition plans. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to each educational institution to which §§ 3.300 through 3.310 apply that: ( 1 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1972; or
( 2 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1965, but thereafter admitted, as regular students, students of the sex not admitted prior to June 23, 1965.
( b ) *Provision for transition plans.* An educational institution to which this section applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in admission or recruitment in violation of §§ 3.300 through 3.310.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 78159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1130; Notice of Availability Docket No. 20-ANE-6]


Notice of Availability of Categorical Exclusion and Record of 
Decision (CATEX/ROD) for Boston Harbor Seaplane Operations, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA, Eastern Service Center is issuing this notice to 
advise the public of the availability of the Categorical Exclusion/
Record of Decision (CATEX/ROD) for the Boston Harbor Seaplane 
Operations. The FAA reviewed the action and determined it to be 
categorically excluded from further environmental review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew Pieroni, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, 1701 
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, (404) 305-5586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
proposes to implement a Letter of Agreement (LOA) between Boston 
Airport Traffic Control Tower (BOS ATCT), Boston Consolidated Terminal 
Radar Approach Control (A90) and Tailwind Air Service for seaplane 
operations in the Boston, Massachusetts Inner Harbor. This proposed LOA 
would ensure standardized, safe and de-conflicted seaplane operations 
in the Boston, Massachusetts Inner Harbor from BOS ATCT operations and 
allows for efficient airspace operations in the General Edward Lawrence 
Logan International Airport (BOS) Class B airspace. The proposed VFR 
handling of seaplane arrivals and departures will enhance safety and 
minimize delays for aircraft at BOS. The FAA reviewed the action and 
determined it to be categorically excluded from further environmental 
review according to FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies 
and Procedures. The applicable categorical exclusion is Sec.  5-
6.S(i.).

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 24, 2020.
Andrew Pieroni,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Operations Support Group, Eastern 
Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020-26603 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### § 58.15 Tiering.

Responsible entities may tier their environmental reviews and assessments to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues at subsequent levels of review. Tiering is appropriate when there is a requirement to evaluate a policy or proposal in the early stages of development or when site-specific analysis or mitigation is not currently feasible and a more narrow or focused analysis is better done at a later date. The site specific review need only reference or summarize the issues addressed in the broader review. The broader review should identify and evaluate those issues ripe for decision and exclude those issues not relevant to the policy, program or project under consideration. The broader review should also establish the policy, standard or process to be followed in the site specific review. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the broader assessment shall include a summary of the assessment and identify the significant issues to be considered in site specific reviews. Subsequent site-specific reviews will not require notices or a Request for Release of Funds unless the Certifying Officer determines that there are unanticipated impacts or impacts not adequately addressed in the prior review. A tiering approach can be used for meeting environmental review requirements in areas designated for special focus in local Consolidated Plans. Local and State Governments are encouraged to use the Consolidated Plan process to facilitate environmental reviews.
Case 3:09-cv-01914-SI Document 51 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:09-cv-01914-SI Document 51 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01914-SI Document 51 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 3
#### Bernice Pritchett, Also Known as Bonnie Pritchett, Respondent-Appellant, v State of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Cross appeals from a judgment, entered January 3, 1977, upon a decision of the Court of Claims. On September 13, 1974, Joseph B. Hewitt, an off-duty New York State Trooper, went to claimant’s house to discuss some problem between his daughter and claimant’s children. A heated discussion ensued on claimant’s front porch during which claimant called Hewitt a "dirty bastard”. Hewitt lodged a complaint against claimant with the State Police and, thereafter, an appearance ticket for disorderly conduct was issued against the claimant by Sergeant Geehrer who had spoken to Hewitt, claimant and some neighbors about the dispute. Hewitt subsequently signed a formal complaint alleging a violation of subdivision 3 of section 240.20 of the Penal Law by the claimant. Claimant was tried for disorderly conduct on November 13, 1974 and found guilty. These claims for malicious prosecution and false arrest were filed on December 5, 1974. Claimant’s appeal of the conviction was filed on December 7, 1974 and the conviction was reversed on August 20, 1975. The trial took place on November 8, 1976. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim for false arrest after trial. It found that no arrest had occurred. The court further found sufficient proof of malice and lack of probable cause to justify a recovery by claimant for malicious prosecution in the amount of $2,500 for emotional harm and indignity, $5,000 for punitive damages and $2,500 for attorney’s fees. On these cross appeals, we would initially affirm the dismissal of claimant’s cause of action for false arrest. Concededly, in this instance, claimant was never arrested, but merely issued an appearance ticket, a procedural device utilized as a "compassionate substitute” for a warrantless arrest (Practice Commentary by Richard G. Denzer, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11 A, CPL 150.20, p 559). Without question, she was not restrained in any way so as to justify an award for false arrest. Similarly, we find that the cause of action for malicious prosecution should likewise have been dismissed. For claimant to prevail thereon, she must have established the absence of probable cause for *1111the criminal proceeding *(Broughton v State of New York,*37 NY2d 451), and this she failed to do. Uncontradicted evidence herein establishes that, during a verbal altercation with Trooper Hewitt, claimant made certain abusive utterances heard by nearby residents. These and the other surrounding circumstances provided ample justification for bringing the criminal proceedings. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by reversing so much thereof as awarded damages for malicious prosecution, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### § 241.860 Commissioner's right to require acceleration.

Upon receipt of notice of the failure of the borrower to comply with any covenant or obligation under the security instrument or note, or under the conventional note and mortgage, the Commissioner may require the lender to accelerate payment of the outstanding principal balance due.
#### § 241.595 Eligibility of title.

In order for the property which is to be the security for a loan to be insured under this subpart to be eligible for insurance, the Commissioner shall determine that the title to the property is vested in the borrower as of the date the security instrument is filed for record. The title evidence will be examined by the Commissioner and the endorsement of the credit instrument for insurance shall be evidence of its acceptability.
#### SHAW v. UNION BAG & PAPER CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 20, 1903.)

Action by Jack. *1148Shaw an infant, by Aaron Shaw, his guardian ad litem, against the Union Bag & Paper Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, without ■costs.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.C. FISCHER AND COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES CARTWRIGHT,

Defendant. /

No. C-09-02316 EDL

ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

On June 21, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request to continue pretrial and trial dates in

this matter. Good cause appearing, the Court grants the request as follows. The trial date is

continued to January 5, 2011. The length of the trial shall not be more than two days. The pretrial

conference is scheduled for December 14, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. The last day for hearing dispositive

motions shall be October 5, 2010. The parties shall meet and confer regarding extensions of fact and

expert discovery cutoff dates. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02316-EDL Document 41 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 1