alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property, as a Site for Public School 128, and Recreational Purposes, Bounded by Audubon Avenue and Other Streets, in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York. Graycliff Realty Corp. et al., Respondents-Appellants, Wadsworth 5¢ and 10¢ Stores Inc., et al., Respondents.

Final decree, insofar as appealed from, unanimously modified on the law and the facts by reducing the awards on Damage Parcel No. 1 from $410,000 to $326,000 and on Damage Parcel No. 5 from $96,000 to $83,000. As so modified, the decree is unanimously affirmed, with costs to the City of New York against the claimants-respondents-appellants. Although we are of the opinion that the rental obtained from the roof sign on Damage Parcel No. 1 should have been considered in the estimated gross rental for that parcel, nevertheless the whole record before us does not warrant awards in excess of the amounts to which the awards have been reduced on Damage Parcels Nos. 1 and 5. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
§ 886.110 Contract rents. ( a ) The sum of the Contract Rents plus an Allowance for Utilities and Other Services shall not exceed the published Section 8 Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing, except that they may be exceeded by: ( 1 ) Up to 10 percent if the Field Office Director determines that special circumstances warrant such higher rents, or
( 2 ) By up to 20 percent where the Regional Administrator determines that special circumstances warrant such higher rents, and in either case, such higher rents meet the test of reasonableness in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) In the case of any project completed not more than six years prior to the application for assistance under that part, or in the case of units converted to Section 8 which were previously assisted under Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 or Section 236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act, contract rents plus any allowance for utilities and other services may be as high as 75 percent of the published Section 8 Fair Market Rents for New Construction, which limitation may be increased: ( 1 ) By up to 10 percent if the Field Office Director determines that special circumstances warrant such higher rents, or
( 2 ) by up to 20 percent where the Regional Administrator determines that special circumstances warrant such higher rents, and in either case, such higher rents meet the test of reasonableness contained in paragraph (c) of this section. The project shall be converted using the current HUD approved rent level established pursuant to 24 CFR 207.19(e)(2)(i).
( c ) In any case, HUD shall determine and so certify that the Contract Rents for the project do not exceed rents which are reasonable for the location, quality, amenities, facilities, and management and maintenance services in relation to the rents paid for comparable units in the private unassisted market, nor shall the Contract Rents exceed the rents charged by the Owner to unassisted Families for comparable units. HUD shall maintain for three years all certifications and relevant documentation under this paragraph (c).
[42 FR 5603, Jan. 28, 1977, as amended at 48 FR 36103, Aug. 9, 1983; 48 FR 56949, Dec. 27, 1983]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Capital Planning Commission

# AGENCY:

National Capital Planning Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of final adoption and effective date.

# SUMMARY:

                        On December 3, 2020, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) adopted revisions to the Submission Guidelines updating the requirements and criteria for antennas placed on Federal and certain District buildings and lands in the National Capital Region. Federal and District agency applicants who are seeking to place antennas on their property are subject to review by the Commission following a process laid out in the Submission Guidelines. The revisions to the Antenna Submission Guidelines address several deficiencies in the current guidelines, namely: Adding definitions for small cells and temporary antennas; including several new criteria to help protect viewsheds and address multiple antennas on building rooftops; and identifying the review process for temporary and small cell antennas. The final amended document can be found at:                         *https://www.ncpc.gov/​initiatives/​antennas/​.*

# DATES:

The revised Submission Guidelines will become effective February 8, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Carlton Hart at (202) 482-7252 or                         *info@ncpc.gov.*

Authority:40 U.S.C. 8721(e)(2).

Dated: December 7, 2020.

Anne R. Schuyler,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2020-27150 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7502-02-P
Exhibit 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of The9 Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hannah Lee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.

Date: June 28, 2007



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Hannah Lee         
|Name:  |  | Hannah Lee             
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

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 CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Laurie Romanak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    LAURIE
ROMANAKLaurie Romanak Chief Financial Officer


March 31, 2008
MID-ATLANTIC COMMUNITY BANKGROUP, INC.
Exhibit (11)--Statement re: computation of per share earnings


                                             9 Months Ended September 30,
                                              1997               1996
                                              ----               ----



PRIMARY

       Average shares outstanding                977,262            944,333
       Net effect of dilutive stock
         options--based on the treasury
         stock method using average
         market price                             33,064             30,458
                                          --------------    ---------------

       TOTAL                                   1,010,326            974,791
                                          ==============    ===============


       Net Income                         $    1,180,479    $     1,119,085
                                          ==============    ===============


       Per Share Amount                   $         1.17    $          1.15
                                          ==============    ===============


FULLY DILUTED

       Average shares outstanding                977,262            944,333
       Net effect of dilutive stock
         options--based on the treasury
         stock method using the year
         end market price, if higher
         than average market price                34,504             33,064
                                          --------------    ---------------

       TOTAL                                   1,011,766            977,397
                                          ==============    ===============


       Net Income                             $1,180,479       $  1,119,085
                                          ==============    ===============


       Per Share Amount                   $         1.17    $          1.14
                                          ==============    ===============


  
                                     16
### §§1314f to 1315a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1314f to 1315a were omitted as not of general application, and as covered by the Canal Zone Code. The Canal Zone Code was subsequently redesignated the Panama Canal Code by Pub. L. 96–70, §3303(b), and repealed by Pub. L. 104–201, §3549.

Section 1314f, act Oct. 1, 1942, ch. 574, 56 Stat. 763, related to prohibition of production, possession, and disposition of marihuana.

Section 1314g, act Oct. 1, 1942, ch. 574, 56 Stat. 763, related to defining terms for purposes of act Oct. 1, 1942.

Section 1314h, acts Oct. 1, 1942, ch. 574, 56 Stat. 763; Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §2(b), 64 Stat. 1038, related to licenses for certain marihuana uses.

Section 1314i, act Oct. 1, 1942, ch. 574, 56 Stat. 763, related to violations, punishment, and confiscation.

Section 1315, acts Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 390, §5, 37 Stat. 562; June 15, 1914, ch. 106, §1, 2, 38 Stat. 385, 386; Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 752, 50 Stat. 750; Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §11, 64 Stat. 1042, related to tolls generally.

Section 1315a, act Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §12, 64 Stat. 1042, related to bases of tolls.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1826 

ROBERT S. REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARK WARNER, Honorable, Governor of

Commonwealth of Virginia,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

MEDICAL COLLEGE OF VIRGINIA, Auxiliary of

Virginia Commonwealth University Health

System; RETREAT HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (CA-05-349)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert S. Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Hall, Judith

Williams Jagdmann, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert S. Reynolds appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny Reynolds’ motion for an en banc hearing and affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Reynolds v. Warner, No.

CA-05-349 (E.D. Va. June 23, 2005). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79016-79017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

[CFDA Number: 93.595]


Announcement of the Intent To Award a Single-Source Grant to the 
University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland

AGENCY: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of a Single-Source award.

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

SUMMARY: ACF/OPRE announces the intent to award a grant in the amount 
of $499,514 to the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. 
The purpose of this award is to develop alternative statistical methods 
for adjusting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) caseload 
data to account for states' programmatic differences and examine the 
relative effectiveness of state programs.

DATES: The proposed period of performance is January 1, 2021 to 
December 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Girley Wright, Senior Program Analyst, 
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-401-5070; Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36515f445a534f1841445f515e4276575550185e5e4518515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f19698839d9488df868398969985b1909297df999982df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The University of Maryland plans to develop 
several alternative statistical methods for comparing TANF outcomes 
across states and complete two reports. The first report will describe 
the results of applying the selected models to each of the TANF 
performance measures, the sensitivity of the analyses to assumptions 
and model specifications, the sufficiency of the existing federal TANF 
data, and the usefulness of supplemental, state-level TANF data. The 
second report will describe the grantee efforts to convene cross-state, 
peer-to-peer performance improvement exchanges, including the results 
of an evaluation of states' efforts. The results of this award will 
increase ACF's ability to answer questions about how well TANF helps 
recipients increase their employment and earnings and move toward self-
sufficiency. The Office of Family Assistance in coordination with OPRE 
would find this analysis informative and useful for ongoing TANF 
performance management efforts.


[[Page 79017]]


    Statutory Authority: Social Security Act, Title IV, Section 
413(a), 42 U.S.C. Sec.  613(a).

Elizabeth Leo,
Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Office of Grants Policy, Office of 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-26970 Filed 12-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8414-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 1227.501 What are a State's responsibilities to ensure that reporters correct erroneous data? To ensure the correction of erroneous data, you must: ( a ) Ensure compliance with the provisions of 30 CFR parts 1216 and 1218, any applicable handbook specified under 30 CFR 1227.401 (f) and (g), interagency memorandums of understanding to which ONRR is a party, and the *Standards*;
( b ) Ensure that reporters accurately and timely correct all fatal errors as designated in the *Standards.* These errors include, for example, invalid or incorrect reporter/payor codes, incorrect lease/agreement numbers, and missing data fields;
( c ) Submit accepted and corrected lines to ONRR to allow processing in a timely manner as provided in the *Standards* and 30 CFR part 1219; and
( d ) Comply with the procedures for appealed demands or orders, including meeting timeframes, supplying information, and using the appropriate format.
[62 FR 43064, Aug. 12, 1997, as amended at 67 FR 19112, Apr. 18, 2002; 75 FR 61087, Oct. 4, 2010]
###### 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.

#### § 982.602 SRO: Who may reside in an SRO?

A single person may reside in an SRO housing unit.

[64 FR 26650, May 14, 1999]
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Vito Pacelli, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,583.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
#### § 1210.354 Reporting instructions.

Refer to ONRR's *Minerals Revenue Reporter Handbook—Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources* for specific guidance on how to prepare and submit required information collection reports and forms to ONRR. You may find the handbook at *http://www.onrr.gov/FM/Handbooks/default.htm* or from contacts listed on that Web page.

[77 FR 25880, May 2, 2012]
### §469. Increase in construction charges

No increase in the construction charges shall, after August 13, 1914, be made, after the same have been fixed by public notice, except by agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and a majority of the water-right applicants and entrymen to be affected by such increase, whereupon all water-right applicants and entrymen in the area proposed to be affected by the increased charge shall become subject thereto. Such increased charge shall be added to the construction charge and payment thereof distributed over the remaining unpaid installments of construction charges: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, in his discretion, may agree that such increased construction charge shall be paid in additional annual installments, each of which shall be at least equal to the amount of the largest installment as fixed for the project by the public notice theretofore issued. And such additional installments of the increased construction charge, as so agreed upon shall become due and payable on December 1 of each year subsequent to the year when the final installment of the construction charge under such public notice is due and payable: Provided further, That all such increased construction charges shall be subject to the same conditions, penalties, and suit or action as provided in sections 478, 480, and 481 of this title.

(Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §4, 38 Stat. 687.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEIHUA ZHANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71279

Agency No. A099-890-060

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 27, 2017** 

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Meihua Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,

FILED

JUL 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir.

2014) (citing Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). We grant the

petition for review and remand. 

The record compels the conclusion that the IJ did not provide Zhang

adequate notice of the corroboration required to supplement her credible testimony

and an opportunity to explain the reasonable availability of such evidence. See Ren

v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011); Lai, 773 F.3d at 975–76

(concluding that reliance on failure to provide corroborating evidence was

procedurally improper where applicant never received notice of a need to produce

the corroborative evidence identified in the IJ’s decision or an opportunity to either

produce the evidence or explain its unavailability). We note that the IJ did not

have the benefit of Ren because it was issued after her decision but before the

BIA’s decision. We therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this

disposition. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.

2 13-71279
§ 578.21 Awarding funds. ( a ) *Selection.* HUD will review applications in accordance with the guidelines and procedures provided in the NOFA and will award funds to recipients through a national competition based on selection criteria as defined in section 427 of the Act.
( b ) *Announcement of awards.* HUD will announce awards and notify selected applicants of any conditions imposed on awards. Conditions must be satisfied before HUD will execute a grant agreement with the applicant.
( c ) *Satisfying conditions.* HUD will withdraw an award if the applicant does not satisfy all conditions imposed on it. Correcting all issues and conditions attached to an award must be completed within the time frame established in the NOFA. Proof of site control, match, environmental review, and the documentation of financial feasibility must be completed within 12 months of the announcement of the award, or 24 months in the case of funds for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction. The 12-month deadline may be extended by HUD for up to 12 additional months upon a showing of compelling reasons for delay due to factors beyond the control of the recipient or subrecipient.
§ 22.10 Approval plate. ( a ) *Attachment to be made by manufacturers.* ( 1 ) Manufacturers shall attach, stamp, or mold an approval plate on each permissible methane detector. The plate shall bear the emblem of the Mines Safety and Health Administration and be inscribed as follows: Permissible Methane Detector (or Permissible Methane Indicating Detector) Approval No. ______ issued to the ______________ Company.
( 2 ) When deemed necessary, an appropriate caution statement shall be added. The size and position of the approval plate shall be satisfactory to MSHA.
( b ) *Purpose of approval plate.* The approval plate is a label that identifies the device so that anyone can tell at a glance whether it is of the permissible type or not. By the plate, the manufacturer can point out that his detector complies with MSHA's requirements and that it has been approved for use in gassy mines.
( c ) *Use of approval plate.* Permission to place MSHA's approval plate on his detector obligates the manufacturer to maintain the quality of his product and to see that each detector is constructed according to the drawings that have been accepted by MSHA and are in MSHA's files. Detectors exhibiting changes in design that have not been approved are not permissible and must not bear MSHA's approval plate.
( d ) *Withdrawal of approval.* MSHA reserves the right to rescind for cause at any time any approval granted under this part.
[Sched. 8C, Oct. 31, 1935, as amended at 43 FR 12315, Mar. 24, 1978]