alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 990.235 PHAs that will experience a subsidy increase.

(a) For PHAs that will experience a gain in their operating subsidy, as determined in [§ 990.225](/on/2024-09-16/title-24/section-990.225), such increases will have a limit of 50 percent of the difference between the two funding levels in the first year following implementation of the formula contained in this part.

(b) The full amount of the increase in the operating subsidy level shall be realized in the second year following implementation of the formula contained in this part.

(c) For example, a PHA's subsidy increased from $900,000 under the formula in effect prior to implementation of the formula contained in this part to $1 million under the formula contained in this part using FY 2004 data. The difference would be calculated at $100,000 ($1 million−$900,000 = $100,000). In the first year, the subsidy increase would be limited to $50,000 (50 percent of the difference). Thus, in this example the PHA will receive the operating subsidy amount of this rule minus a transition-funding amount of $50,000 (the $100,000 difference between the two subsidy amounts minus the $50,000 transition amount).

(d) The schedule for a PHA whose subsidy would be increased is reflected in the table below.

| Funding period | Increase limited to |
| --- | --- |
| Year 1 | 50 percent of the difference. |
| Year 2 | Full increase reached. |

[[70 FR 54997](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-54997), Sept. 19, 2005; [70 FR 61367](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-61367), Oct. 24, 2005]
§ 1227.801 What if a State does not adequately perform a delegated function? If your performance of the delegated function does not comply with your delegation agreement, or the *Standards,* or if ONRR finds that you can no longer meet the statutory requirements under § 1227.106, then ONRR may: ( a ) Notify you in writing of your noncompliance or inability to comply. The notice will prescribe corrective actions you must take, and how long you have to comply. You may ask ONRR for an extension of time to comply with the notice. In your extension request you must explain why you need more time; and
( b ) If you do not take the prescribed corrective actions within the time that ONRR allows in a notice issued under paragraph (a) of this section, then ONRR may: ( 1 ) Initiate proceedings under § 1227.802 to terminate all or a part of your delegation agreement;
( 2 ) Withhold compensation provided to you under § 1227.112; and
( 3 ) Perform the delegated function, before terminating or without terminating your delegation agreement, including, but not limited to, issuing a demand or order to a Federal lessee, or its designee, or any other person when: ( i ) Your failure to issue the demand or order would result in an underpayment of an obligation due ONRR; and
( ii ) The underpayment would go uncollected without ONRR intervention.
### §5108. Special exemptions

(a) The Secretary may exempt a vessel from any part of this chapter when—

(1) the vessel is entitled to an exemption under an international agreement to which the United States Government is a party; or

(2) under regulations (including regulations on special operations conditions) prescribed by the Secretary, the Secretary finds that good cause exists for granting an exemption.

(b) When the Secretary grants an exemption under this section, the Secretary may issue a certificate of exemption stating the extent of the exemption.

(c) A certificate of exemption issued under subsection (b) of this section shall be maintained as required by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 99–509, title V, §5101(2), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1916.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### Revised section 5108

Source: Section (U.S. Code) 46 App. U.S.C. 86e, 88a.

Section 5108(a) authorizes the Secretary to exempt a vessel from load line requirements if the vessel is entitled to an exemption under an international agreement to which the United States is a party. It also provides the Secretary with the new authority to exempt a vessel from load line requirements if the Secretary finds that there is good reason for granting the exemption. A specific exemption from load line requirements was authorized in Public Law 98–557 for barges operating close to shore between Calumet Harbor, Illinois and Burns Harbor, Indiana, because the geographic area and type of operation in this case did not warrant a requirement for load lines. Additional exemptions currently must be made by an Act of Congress. Section 5108(a) authorizes the Secretary to make such exemptions through regulation, and the Committee expects the Secretary to continue the exemption under this provision for vessels operating close to shore between Calumet Harbor, Illinois and Burns Harbor, Indiana.

Section 5108(b) authorizes the Secretary to issue a certificate of exemption when an exemption is granted.

Section 5108(c) requires that the certificate of exemption be maintained as required by the Secretary in a similar manner as under section 5106(b).
VENDOR PROFILE

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have 

changed. Contact vendor for updates.

Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool

GeoPure Hydrotechnologies

Contact Information

Company Name: GeoPure Hydrotechnologies

Profile: GeoPure is a commercial stage, full service provider to 

contaminated water producers with focus on water recycling and 

purification rather than disposal. The company utilizes RO 

technology that was developed by the Global Petroleum 

Research Institute (GPRI) and a patent pending pre-treatment 

system. Their RO system has been field tested in the Barnett 

Shale and in certain regions of Wyoming.

Address: 777 Main Street, Suite 600, Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Phone: 817-887-8452

Website: www.geopurewt.com

Treatment Technology

Category: Membrane

Subcategory: Reverse Osmosis and Micro-Filtration

Technology Name:

Surface Footprint

Process 

Description:

The GeoPure treatment process is a combination of pretreatment, microfiltration, and RO. These three treatment steps 

are operated in series to treat produced water compositions and 

generate clean water stream that can then be discharged or 

reused for fracing. This technology was specifically developed for 

the desalination of oil and gas produced waters. Depending on 

the quality of the feed water, the process implements various 

pretreatment processes to remove dispersed oil, suspended 

solids, or dissolved hydrocarbons. The pretreated water is then 

further purified with polymeric microfiltration and RO. To increase 

RO efficiency, the microfiltration step filters out suspended solids 

prior to final RO treatment.

Feedwater TDS/

% Water Recovery

Approximately 15,000 mg/L, approximately 50% water recovery

% Waste Stream:

Feed Capacity: 5,000 bpd

Costs: $0.94 Bbl ( based on costs reported for Barnett Shale study)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3484

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005

Mr. RYUN of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic footwear.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:
2

•HR 3484 IH 

‘‘ 9902.64.21 Men’s tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes, and the like, with 

pigskin uppers and outer 

soles of rubber, plastics, 

leather, or composition 

leather (provided for in subheading 6403.99.60) and 

women’s tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, 

training shoes, and the like, 

with pigskin uppers and 

outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather, or composition 

leather, valued over $2.50 

per pair (provided for in 

subheading 6403.99.90) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
### §§1323 to 1323–3. Repealed. Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §13(2), 64 Stat. 1043

Section 1323, acts Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 390, §6, 37 Stat. 563; Aug. 12, 1949, ch. 422, §2, 63 Stat. 601, related to establishment and operation of various facilities.

Section 1323–1, acts Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 390, §6, 37 Stat. 563; Aug. 12, 1949, ch. 422, §2, 63 Stat. 601, related to organization and conduct of facilities as business operations.

Section 1323–2, act June 19, 1934, ch. 667, §53, as added Aug. 12, 1949, ch. 422, §2, 63 Stat. 601, related to receipts, sales, and services.

Section 1323–3, act June 19, 1934, ch. 667, §54, as added Aug. 12, 1949, ch. 422, §2, 63 Stat. 601, related to exemption of operations of postal service.
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-122167) pertaining to the CDT Acquisition Corp. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan and the Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and the Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No. 333-131208 and S-3 No.333-134921) of our report dated March 7, 2005, with respect to the 2004 consolidated financial statements of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Ernst and Young LLP 

Ernst and Young LLP 

New York, NY 

March 1, 2007
#### In the Matter of Anthony P. Venditto, Respondent, v Jennifer R. Davis, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 725]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated May 27, 2006, as, after a hearing, awarded custody of the child to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The mother contends that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in refusing to grant her an adjournment of the custody hearing until some unspecified point in time so that she could obtain additional evidence. However, “[t]he granting of an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court” *(Matter of Anthony M.,*63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; *see Matter of Steven B.,*6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; *Matter of Sicurella v Embro,*31 AD3d 651 [2006]), upon “a balanced consideration of all relevant factors” (M*atter of Sicurella v Embro, supra*at 651). Here, counsel for the mother failed to make an adequate offer of proof as to the relevance of the evidence he sought to obtain or to demonstrate that the need for the adjournment was not due to a lack of due diligence on his or his client’s part *(cf. Matter of Shepard,*286 AD2d 336, 337 [2001]; *Romero v City of New York,*260 AD2d 461 [1999]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P, Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### Harry Harkavy v. Apollo Bottling Co., Inc.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before December 5, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to he argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 18, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00732

- CR

Eric Nathaniel REEL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Fr om t he 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR11077 Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s court

- a ppointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appella nt, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed a ppellant of his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the re cord and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State

, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. Ap p.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). On March 16, 2020, appellant filed the form motion requesti ng a copy of the appellate record.

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s request for a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by M a y 4,

2020. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

– 82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);

Schulman v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410

– 11 (Tex. Crim. App . 2008) (same).____________ _____________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of March, 2020

.

______________ _____________________ Michael A . Cruz

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3368 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3368

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, Michigan, as the ``Gagetown 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2005

  Mr. Kildee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, Michigan, as the ``Gagetown 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. GAGETOWN VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, Michigan, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Gagetown Veterans Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Gagetown 
Veterans Memorial Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 100.8 Service. ( a ) All operators are required by part 41 (Notification of Legal Identity) of this chapter to file with MSHA the name and address of record of the operator. All representatives of miners are required by part 40 (Representative of Miners) of this chapter to file with MSHA the mailing address of the person or organization acting in a representative capacity. Proposed penalty assessments delivered to those addresses shall constitute service.
( b ) If any of the parties choose to have proposed penalty assessments mailed to a different address, the Office of Assessments must be notified in writing of the new address. Delivery to this address shall also constitute service.
( c ) Service for operators who fail to file under part 41 of this chapter will be upon the last known business address recorded with MSHA.
### §§1191 to 1202. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1191 to 1202 were omitted in view of recognition of Philippine independence.

Section 1191, acts Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §11, 39 Stat. 548; July 21, 1921, ch. 51, 42 Stat. 145; May 31, 1922, ch. 203, 42 Stat. 599, related to bond issues to anticipate taxes and revenue.

Section 1192, act Feb. 6, 1905, ch. 453, §2, 33 Stat. 689, related to bond issues for public improvements.

Section 1193, act Feb. 6, 1905, ch. 453, §1, 33 Stat. 689, related to government bonds as exempt from taxation.

Section 1194, acts July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §66, 32 Stat. 707; Feb. 6, 1905, ch. 453, §3, 33 Stat. 690, related to municipal indebtedness for improvements.

Section 1195, act July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §67, 32 Stat. 707, related to denominations of bonds.

Section 1196, act July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §68, 32 Stat. 708, related to use of funds from sale of bonds.

Section 1197, act July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §69, 32 Stat. 708, related to taxes to pay bonds and creation of a sinking fund.

Section 1198, act July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §§70, 71, 32 Stat. 708, related to bonds for sewers and water supply in Manila.

Section 1199, act July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §72, 32 Stat. 708, related to use of funds from sale of bonds for sewers and water supply in Manila.

Section 1200, act July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §73, 32 Stat. 708, related to taxes and sinking fund for payment of bonds for sewers and water supply in Manila.

Section 1201, act Feb. 6, 1905, ch. 453, §4, 33 Stat. 690, related to guarantee of railroad bonds and the contract of guaranty.

Section 1202, act Feb. 6, 1905, ch. 453, §4, 33 Stat. 690, related to jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Philippines over actions brought under section 1201 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Salvatore Russo, Petitioner, v New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated March 10, 1975 and made after a hearing, which denied petitioner’s application for a moratorium permit pursuant to ECL 25-0202. By order dated January 24, 1977 this court directed the respondents, within 180 days thereof, to set a date certain for the termination of the moratorium on alteration of tidal wetlands pursuant to ECL 25-0202 and the proceeding has been held in abeyance in the interim *(Matter of Russo v New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,*55 AD2d 935). Appropriate regulations have been filed. Proceeding dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. "Land Use Regulations” for tidal wetlands were filed on July 21, 1977 and became effective on August 20, 1977 (6 NYCRR 661.1 *et seq.).*Hence, as of that latter date, the moratorium ended (see ECL 25-0202, subd 1). At oral argument there was some question raised as to whether the property involved is even presently inventoried as a tidal wetland; however, this issue is not in the record before us. Accordingly, this review of the denial of a moratorium permit is academic. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Damiani and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
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 Parks! America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jon Laria, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 operations of the Company.    Date:  May 15, 2009By:/s/ Jon LariaJon Laria
Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)    20
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13A-14**

**PROMULGATED UNDER**

**SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003**

I, Jack A. Cuneo, President and Chief Executive Officer of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust; 

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

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

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

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

(b) [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986, Section III E.] 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date April 2, 2007
#### § 990.270 Asset management.

As owners, PHAs have asset management responsibilities that are above and beyond property management activities. These responsibilities include decision-making on topics such as long-term capital planning and allocation, the setting of ceiling or flat rents, review of financial information and physical stock, property management performance, long-term viability of properties, property repositioning and replacement strategies, risk management responsibilities pertaining to regulatory compliance, and those decisions otherwise consistent with the PHA's ACC responsibilities, as appropriate.