alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 582.410 Obligation and deobligation of funds. ( a ) *Obligation of funds.* When HUD and the applicant execute a grant agreement, HUD will obligate funds to cover the amount of the approved grant. The recipient will be expected to carry out the activities as proposed in the application. After the initial obligation of funds, HUD is under no obligation to make any upward revisions to the grant amount for any approved assistance.
( b ) *Deobligation.* ( 1 ) HUD may deobligate all or a portion of the approved grant amount if such amount is not expended in a timely manner, or the proposed housing for which funding was approved or the supportive services proposed in the application are not provided in accordance with the approved application, the requirements of this part, and other applicable HUD regulations. The grant agreement may set forth other circumstances under which funds may be deobligated, and other sanctions may be imposed.
( 2 ) HUD may readvertise, in a notice of fund availability, the availability of funds that have been deobligated, or may reconsider applications that were submitted in response to the most recently published notice of fund availability and select applications for funding with the deobligated funds. Such selections would be made in accordance with the selection process described in § 582.220 of this part. Any selections made using deobligated funds will be subject to applicable appropriation act requirements governing the use of deobligated funding authority.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506-0118)
#### In the Matter of Wiltwyck School For Boys, Inc., Appellant, v. Lester A. Perry, Respondent. In the Matter of Wiltwyck School For Boys, Inc., Appellant, v. Theodore Hill, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Motion by the Citizens’ Committee For Children of New York, Inc., for leave to file brief as *amicus curia,*granted. The brief shall be filed and served on or before February 15, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cheno Melendez, Appellant.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the November 1960 Term; appeal ordered to be placed on the calendar for November 7, 1960. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Joseph Fontana, Esq., 50 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20E0008. IN THE INTEREST OF L. R. et al., CHILDREN.

The Verified Emergency Motion filed by Patrick Roether and Hollie Roether

on October 17, 2019, is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 17, 2019

10/17/2019
§ 582.405 Program changes. ( a ) *Changes.* HUD must approve, in writing, any significant changes to an approved program. Significant changes that require approval include, but are not limited to, a change in sponsor , a change in the project site for SRO or PRA with rehabilitation projects, and a change in the type of persons with disabilities to be served. Depending on the nature of the change, HUD may require a new certification of consistency with the CHAS (see § 582.120).
( b ) *Approval.* Approval for such changes is contingent upon the application ranking remaining high enough to have been competitively selected for funding in the year the application was selected.
#### § 35.825 Ongoing lead-based paint maintenance and reevaluation.

HUD shall incorporate ongoing lead-based paint maintenance and reevaluation, in accordance with § 35.1355, into regular building operations if HUD retains ownership of the residential property for more than 12 months.
§ 972.200 Purpose. This subpart implements section 22 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437t). The purposes of this subpart are to: ( a ) Require PHAs to perform an assessment which considers developments for which conversion of public housing may be appropriate; and
( b ) Provide a basis for a PHA to take action for conversion on a voluntary basis.
#### § 581.13 Waivers.

The Secretary may waive any requirement of this part that is not required by law, whenever it is determined that undue hardship would result from applying the requirement, or where application of the requirement would adversely affect the purposes of the program. Each waiver will be in writing and will be supported by documentation of the pertinent facts and grounds. The Secretary periodically will publish notice of granted waivers in the Federal Register.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FAMOUS DAVE'S OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 1, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                       2,252,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,249,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,730,000
<PP&E>                                      52,079,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,784,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,807,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,509,000
<BONDS>                                     12,786,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    43,724,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (14,567,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,807,000
<SALES>                                     52,452,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,452,000
<CGS>                                       17,132,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,499,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (903,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,780,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,780,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,780,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18


</TABLE>
compt oer General

of the United States

|9 ingonD.C.208 gN |Wi) van

Decision

Matter of: Aeronautical Components, Inc.; Aluminum

Precision Products, Inc.; ECS Enterprises Ltd.;

Eason and Waller; Royell Manufacturing, Inc.

rile: B-253719; B-253719.2; B-253719.3; B-253719.4;

B-253719.5

Date: June 16, 1993

Nat Regina for Aeronautical Components, Inc.; Roark L.

Keeler for Aluminum Precision Products, Inc.; Joseph Petito

for ECS Enterprise Ltd.; Charles 0. Waller for Eason and

Waller; James Yelle for Royell Manufacturing, Inc., the

protesters.

DIGEST

Protests of agency intention to start charging a fee for

solicitations are dismissed since they relate only to an

announced policy and are not related to any specific

solicitation; a protest must relate to a solicitation or to

an award or proposed award thereunder.

DECISION

Aeronautical Components, Inc.; Aluminum Precision Products,

Inc.; ECS Enterprises Ltd.; Eason and Waller; and Royell

Manufacturing, Inc. protest the announcement by Hill Air

Force Base, Utah that it will charge a $15 fee for

solicitation packages under a one-year pilot test beginning

July 1, 1993. The protesters state that this policy would

restrict competition.

Our bid protest jurisdiction under the Competition in

Contracting Act is limited to complaints involving

solicitations issued by federal agencies and awards made or

proposed to be made under those solicitations. 31 U.S.C.

§ 3551-6 (1988); A. Moe & Co., Inc., 64 Comp. Gen. 155

(1985); 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(a) (1993). Accordingly, in the

absence of a solicitation, we will not consider complaints

about agency practices or policies. Aguirre Architects,

Inc.--Recon., B-230256.2, May 19, 1988, 88-1 CPD ¶ 478 and

ADI Sys. Consultants, B-231511, May 31, 1988, 88-1 ¶ 518.
Since the complaints here concern only Hill's intention to

charge a fee for solicitations and are not related to any

specific solicitation, we cannot consider the protests.

The protests are dismissed.

Ronald Berger J

Associate General Counsel

2 B-253719 et al
PROCUREMENT

Bid Protests

Premature allegation

GAO review

PROCUREMENT

Bid Protest

Administrative policies

GAO review

3 

B-253719.6 et al.
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Lazy Days R.V. Center, Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Horton, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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 operations of the Corporation.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |     |  |                                                      
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 16, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ John Horton                                      
|                         |  |     |  | John Horton                                          
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT
      23.1




INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT


We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement
        of
        GlobalOptions Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-139368) and Form S-8
        (File
        No. 333-16458) of our report dated March 26, 2007, with respect to our audits
        of
        the consolidated financial statements of GlobalOptions Group, Inc. and
        Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and for the years ended December 31,
        2006
        and 2005 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10KSB of GlobalOptions Group,
        Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.   We also consent to the
        reference to our Firm under the heading “Experts” in such
        prospectus.




/s/
      Marcum & Kliegman LLP


Marcum
      & Kliegman LLP




New
      York,
      New York


March
      29,
      2007
Record of Meeting 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0350

Subject: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) /Experimental Aircraft 

Association (EAA) Petition for Exemption regarding Medical Certificates 

On April 1, 2013, several representatives of AOPA met with Federal Aviation 

Administration Aviation Safety (AVS) representatives to discuss a Request for 

Exemption filed by AOPA and EAA.

The organizations requested exemption from various Federal Aviation

Regulations related to FAA-issued medical certificates. The AOPA

representatives stated their members are very interested in this request

and they expressed concern with the slow pace of FAA's efforts to

address the request. They asked whether budget limitations or

sequestration would impact the pace at which FAA would complete its work

on the request. Finally, they reiterated the safety case they put forth in the Request

for Exemption. Briefing slides are attached to this summary.

AVS representatives stated that the request was published for comment

and over 16,000 comments were received. The comments are being reviewed

and final decisions are being considered. Because the Administrator has

a meeting scheduled next week with senior representatives from AOPA and

EAA where this exemption will be raised, we will wait until after that

meeting to make final decisions. A summary of that meeting will be

included in the docket as well.

Attachment – Aeromedical Certification Safety Continuum
(No. 93-CC-2667

#### In re Application of Linda A. (Daniels) Reininger

*Opinion filed June 29, 1993.*

Linda A. (Daniels) Reininger, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Robert J. Sklamberg, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

OPINION

Frederick, J.

This claim is before the Court by reason of the death of Roy E. Reininger, who was a detective with the Village of Schaumburg Police Department. Detective Reininger s widow, Linda A. (Daniels) Reininger, seeks compensation pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 48, par. 281 *et seq.).*

The Court has carefully considered the claim for death benefits submitted herein, together with the written statement of Detective Reininger s supervising officer and documentation submitted therewith, the medical *369examiners certificate of death, autopsy report, case report, the decedents designation of beneficiary form, and the report of the Attorney General.

The instant claim was filed herein on April 9, 1993, by Linda A. (Daniels) Reininger, widow of Roy E. Reininger, who died on December 31, 1992, while a detective with the Village of Schaumburg Police Department.

The record reveals that Detective Reininger was killed on December 31, 1992, when he drove an unmarked police car into the rear of a truck on Schaumburg Road at its intersection with Branchwood Drive in the Village of Schaumburg, Illinois. Detective Reininger was pronounced dead on December 31, 1992, at Humana Hospital of Hoffman Estates. The certificate of death indicates that the cause of death was multiple injuries due to an automobile-truck collision.

Detective Reininger is survived by his wife, Linda A. (Daniels) Reininger, the Claimant herein, and she was named as the sole beneficiary of any benefits payable under the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 48, par. 281 *et seq.).*

A precondition to the granting of compensation under the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act, *supra,*is that the law enforcement officer have been “killed in the fine of duty.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 48, par. 282(e).) The Act further dictates that, “The term (killed in the line of duty) excludes death resulting from willful misconduct or intoxication of the officer # * * *»*

According to Captain Casler s statement of supervising officer and the toxicology analysis attached to the *370autopsy report, Detective Reininger had a blood-alcohol concentration of .207 at the time of his death. Since this exceeds the limit for the legal definition of intoxication, it appears that Detective Reininger was not “killed in the line of duty” as required by the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act.

It is therefore ordered that the claim of Linda A. (Daniels) Reininger for compensation under the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act, *supra,*be, and hereby is, denied.
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.101 Allocation of funding. ( a ) *Allocation of funding.* HUD allocates available budget authority for the tenant-based assistance program to HUD field offices.
( b ) *Section 213(d) allocation.* ( 1 ) Section 213(d) of the HCD Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1439) establishes requirements for allocation of assisted housing budget authority. Some budget authority is exempt by law from allocation under section 213(d). Unless exempted by law, budget authority for the tenant-based programs must be allocated in accordance with section 213(d).
( 2 ) Budget authority subject to allocation under section 213(d) is allocated in accordance with 24 CFR part 791, subpart D. There are three categories of section 213(d) funding allocations under part 791 of this title: ( i ) Funding retained in a headquarters reserve for purposes specified by law;
( ii ) funding incapable of geographic formula allocation (e.g., for renewal of expiring funding increments); or
( iii ) funding allocated by an objective fair share formula. Funding allocated by fair share formula is distributed by a competitive process.
( c ) *Competitive process.* For budget authority that is distributed by competitive process, the Department solicits applications from PHAs by publishing one or more notices of funding availability (NOFAs) in the Federal Register. See 24 CFR part 12, subpart B; and 24 CFR 791.406. The NOFA explains how to apply for assistance, and specifies the criteria for awarding the assistance. The NOFA may identify any special program requirements for use of the funding.
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 26642, May 14, 1999; 80 FR 8246, Feb. 17, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001022174
<NAME> CLASS B
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      18,899,816
<SECURITIES>                                13,050,129
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,702,886
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,702,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,385,281
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,317,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,702,886
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,333,154
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,917,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                415,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            415,383
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   415,383
<EPS-BASIC>                                      26.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    26.65


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JASON A. ANDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-4213

[November 2, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Martin J. Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-7972 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jessica A. De Vera, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina 

Jiminez-Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 891.635 Security deposits. The general requirements for security deposits on assisted units are provided in § 891.435. For purposes of subpart E of this part, the additional requirements apply: ( a ) The Borrower may require each family occupying an unassisted unit (or residential space in a group home) to pay a security deposit equal to one month's rent payable by the family.
( b ) The Borrower shall maintain a record of the amount in the segregated interest-bearing account that is attributable to each family in residence in the project. Annually for all families, and when computing the amount available for disbursement under § 891.435(b)(3), the Borrower shall allocate to the family's balance the interest accrued on the balance during the year. Unless prohibited by State or local law, the Borrower may deduct for the family, from the accrued interest for the year, the administrative cost of computing the allocation to the family's balance. The amount of the administrative cost adjustment shall not exceed the accrued interest allocated to the family's balance for the year.