alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1717.855 Application contents: Advance approval—100 percent private financing of distribution, subtransmission and headquarters facilities, and certain other community infrastructure. Applications for a lien accommodation or subordination that meet the requirements of § 1717.854 must include the following information and documents: ( a ) A certification by an authorized official of the borrower that the borrower and, as applicable, the loan are in compliance with all conditions set forth in § 1717.854(c) and all applicable provisions of §§ 1717.852 and 1717.853;
( b ) A statement requesting the lien accommodation or subordination and including the amount and maturity of the proposed loan, a general description of the facilities or other purposes to be financed, the name and address of the lender, and an attached term sheet summarizing the terms and conditions of the proposed loan;
( c ) The borrower's financial and statistical report, the data in which shall not be more than 60 days old when the complete application is received by RUS;
( d ) Draft copy of any new mortgage or mortgage amendment (supplement) required by RUS or the lender, unless RUS has notified the borrower that it wishes to prepare these documents itself;
( e ) A copy of the loan agreement, loan note, bond or other financing instrument, unless RUS has notified the borrower that these documents need not be submitted;
( f ) Environmental documentation, in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970;
( g ) RUS Form 740c, Cost Estimates and Loan Budget for Electric Borrowers;
( h ) A CWP or CWP amendment covering the proposed project, in accordance with 7 CFR part 1710, subpart F, and subject to RUS approval.
( i ) The certification by the project architect for any buildings to be constructed, as required by § 1717.850(i);
( j ) A certification by an authorized official of the borrower that flood hazard insurance will be obtained for the full value of any buildings, or other facilities susceptible to damage if flooded, that will be located in a flood hazard area;
( k ) Form AD-1047, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions, as required by 2 CFR part 180, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 417;
( l ) A report by the borrower stating whether or not it is delinquent on any Federal debt, and if delinquent, the amount and age of the delinquency and the reasons therefor; and a certification, if not previously provided, that the borrower has been informed of the Government's collection options;
( m ) The written acknowledgement from a registered engineer or architect regarding compliance with seismic provisions of applicable model codes for any buildings to be constructed, as required by 7 CFR 1792.104; and
( n ) Other information that RUS may require to determine whether all of the applicable provisions of this subpart have been met.
[58 FR 53843, Oct. 19, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 67410, Dec. 29, 1995; 79 FR 76003, Dec. 19, 2014; 81 FR 11026, Mar. 2, 2016; 84 FR 32616, July 9, 2019; 87 FR 73442, Nov. 30, 2022]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549


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


                                    FORM 8-K


                                 CURRENT REPORT



                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 26, 1999


                       NL INDUSTRIES, INC.                       
-----------------------------------------------------------------
        (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)



New Jersey                   1-640                    13-5267260
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or other       (Commission File No.)     (Employer ID No.)
jurisdiction of
incorporation)



16825 Northchase Dr., Suite 1200, Houston, Texas             77060
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices)                (Zip Code)



Registrant's telephone number, including area code   (281) 423-3300


                          Not Applicable                         
-------------------------------------------------------------------
  (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)



<PAGE>


Item 5.  Other Events.


         On April 26, 1999,  the  Registrant  issued the press release  attached
hereto  as  Exhibit  99.1  and  incorporated  herein  in its  entirety  by  this
reference.




Item 7.  Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.


         (c)      Exhibits

                  (i)      Exhibit 99.1.    Press Release dated April 26, 1999.



                        *      *      *      *      *




                                    SIGNATURE



         Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the  Registrant  has duly  caused  this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


                                                    NL INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                                       (Registrant)



                                                    /s/Robert D. Hardy
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Robert D. Hardy
                                                    Vice President & Controller



Dated: April 26, 1999
#### Austin W. Bender, Jr. et al., as Executors of Austin W. Bender, Sr., Deceased, Respondents-Appellants, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 44503.)

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the Memorandum, and as modified affirmed, with costs to claimants. New findings made, and inconsistent findings reversed. Memorandum : This was what we might refer to as the “ second taking ”. The first appropriation was in Case No. 45, decided herewith. In our decision in that case we decided that the value of the remaining property after the first appropriation was $4.17 per square foot. The award for this, or the “ second appropriation ” should have been computed on that value and not on a value of $4.50 per square foot. Thus the total amount awarded should have been *793for 1,084 square feet at $4.17 per square foot, totalling $4,520. The award should be reduced to this amount, plus interest. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims for claimants on a claim for permanent appropriation.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
#### VANDERWYDE v. DENNO.

No. 118, Docket 22827.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Jan. 4, 1954.

Decided Jan. 21, 1954.

Writ of Certiorari Denied April 12, 1954.

See 74 S.Ct. 648.

*106Rudolph Stand, New York City, for petitioner-appellant.

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Atty. Gen. of New York, Wendell P. Brown, Sol. Gen., Albany, N. Y., Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Theodore P. Halperin, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, Richard G. Den-zer and Paul A. Stone, Asst. Dist. Attys., New York City, of counsel, for respondent.

Before CHASE, Chief Judge, CLARK, Circuit Judge, and GIBSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed on opinion below. D.C. 113 F.Supp. 918.
EXHIBIT 13(E)
MARKET FOR COMMON STOCK AND RELATED SECURITY HOLDER MATTERS
The  stock  of  Harleysville Group Inc. is quoted on  the
NASDAQ National  Market System, and assigned the symbol
HGIC.   At  the close  of  business on March 1, 2001, the
approximate  number  of holders  of record of Harleysville
Group Inc.'s common stock  was 2,157 (counting all shares
held in single nominee registration as one shareholder).
The  payment  of  dividends  is  subject  to  the
discretion  of Harleysville  Group Inc.'s Board of
Directors which each  quarter considers,  among  other
factors, Harleysville Group's  operating results,  overall
financial condition, capital requirements  and general
business conditions.  The present quarterly dividend  of
$0.14 per share paid in each of the third and fourth
quarters  of 2000  is expected to continue during 2001.  As
a holding company, one  of  Harleysville Group Inc.'s
sources of cash with which  to pay  dividends is dividends
from its subsidiaries.   Harleysville Group  Inc.'s
insurance company subsidiaries are subject to state laws
that restrict their ability to pay dividends.  See Note  10
of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
The  following  table  sets forth the amount  of  cash
dividends declared  per  share,  and the high and  low  bid
quotations  as reported by NASDAQ for Harleysville Group
Inc.'s common stock for each quarter during the past two
years.
					CASH
					DIVIDENDS
	1999              HIGH      LOW	DECLARED
------------------------------------------------
	First Quarter     $16.63    $11.63	$.135

	Second Quarter	17.31	13.19		.135
	Third Quarter	19.50	16.31		.14
	Fourth Quarter	30.50	19.00		.14
	------------------------------------
------------
C
A
S
H

D
I
V
I
D
E
N
D
S
	1999              HIGH      LOW	DECLARED
------------------------------------
-----------First Quarter     $25.75
$18.75	$.125
	Second Quarter	20.69	17.00		.125
	Third Quarter	20.63	13.81		.135
	Fourth Quarter	17.38	12.75		.135
	------------------------------------
------------
			47
<PAGE>
#### §§ 1755.398-1755.399 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 33-43290, 33-65380, 33-65382 and 33-80433) pertaining to Health
Management Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and various employee and
directors stock option plans of Health Management Associates, Inc. of our report
dated October 22, 1999 (except for Note 3 as to which the date is November 30,
1999) with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Health Management Associates, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended September 30, 1999.


                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
December 20, 1999
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 1430.123 Violations of highly erodible and wetland conservation provisions.

The provisions of part 12 of this title apply to this part.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 19, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60553 Summary Calendar

KHALED MUSTAFA IZZAT HASHEM,, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95 319 501

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Khaled Mustafa Izzat Hashem is a citizen and native of Jordan who has petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his request for withholding of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). By failing to brief the issue, Hashem has abandoned his claims under the CAT. Rodriguez v. INS , 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).No. 06-60553 -2- Although our review is normally limited to decisions of the BIA, in this case we have reviewed the findings and conclusions of the immigration judge (IJ) because the BIA denied relief based on the IJ’s decision. Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). Our review of the BIA’s decision is governed by the substantial evidence standard, which requires that the BIA’s decision be upheld unless the “evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). Hashem argues that the IJ erred in finding that he was not a credible witness and in holding that Hashem had failed to show that he was likely to face persecution in Jordan due to his membership in a particular social group and his religious beliefs. Hashem does not challenge the IJ’s determination that Hashem failed to show that there he could not live safely anywhere in Jordan. We are not convinced that we should substitute our judgment for the IJ’s determination that Hashem’s testimony as to past events in Jordan and the likelihood that he would face future persecution was not credible. Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft , 351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir. 2003). Hashem does not allege that he would be subject to persecution due to any protected ground.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft ,No. 06-60553 -3- 303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2002). Hashem has waived any challenge to the IJ’s finding that he failed to show that there is no place in Jordan where he could safely live. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i); Rodriguez v. INS , 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50442 Conference Calendar

__________________
DAVID GLENN BRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BREWER, Mr.; L. STEELE, DENNIS WALKER, Sheriff, LIMESTONE COUNTY COURT COMMISSIONERS; JACK CRUMP; D. CORDOVA, Captain; ALFREDO, Lt.; B. KENT, Sgt.; CRONK, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of USDC No. W-95-CV-153

- - - - - - - - - - August 24, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Glenn Bray has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this court. To proceed pro se and IFP on appeal, Bray must show that he is a pauper and must raise a nonfrivolous issue. Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5thNo. 95-50442 -2- Cir. 1982). "The inquiry is limited to whether the appeal involves `legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).'" Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Bray does not raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. An order denying an application to proceed IFP is immediately appealable and is properly before this court. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Division , 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975). The denial of IFP status is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1243-44. Whether a party may proceed IFP in the district court is based solely upon economic criteria. Watson v. Ault , 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976). Poverty sufficient to qualify does not require absolute destitution. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Co. , 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The central question is whether the movant can afford the costs without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life. Id . at 339-40. The district court determined that Bray had sufficient funds to pay the $120 it cost to file his complaint. Given Bray's attestations that he had $21.37 in his prison trust account, that in the last six months he had received deposits in excess of $370, and that he receives about $120 a month in deposits, he could afford the filing fee without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bray motion to proceed IFP. As such, Bray fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. His motion to proceed IFP in this court is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.No. 95-50442 -3-
#### *Erwin vs. Devine.*

Assumpsit.

Case 50.

Error to Montgomery Circuit; Silas W. Robbins, Judge.

*Misjoinder,, Liability. Joint. Several. Verdict.*JV<m-*suit. Allegation. Proof.*

April 14.

If a plaintiff join two or aotlon'ofTssumpsit, and declare on a undertaking6’ or liability, .andtheeyi*205denceprove3 b",¿5abj® verdict against him! & roneous. A nonsuit ?houId j?ave

*204Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

DEVINE brought an action of assumpsit against the plaintiff in error and seven others, to recoveP their rateable proportions of $100, which he alleged he had expended for their use. The declaration so far as it sets out a cause of action against the defendants, for their rateable proportions of $100, is clearly defective, for it proceeds against the defendants jointly, for wlaat is clearly a separate liability. This defect was by an amendment of the declara! ion *205attempted to be cured. The amendment avers that Devine, at the request of the defendants, laid out and expended ‡100 for their use and benefit, thus a joint liability on the defendants for the whole sum. On the trial, the jury found a verdict against the plaintiff in error, for $33 in damages, and found in favor of all the other defendants. This verdict cannot be sustained. Devine, by amending his declaration, placed his right to recover upon a joint undertaking of all the defendants, and unless he proved a joint assumpsit, the court should have instructed the jury to find, as in case of a non-suit, on the application of the defendants. See 1 Chi tty, 31, for the general rule inactions, in form *ex contractu,*where there is more than one defendant. There may be exceptions to it, but the present case is not an exception, *We*are of opinion that the evidence did not shew a joint liability on the part of the. defendants, and that the court erred, in refusing to instruct the jury, as in case of a non-suit. It is unnecessary to notice the other errors assigned.

*Crittenden and Triplett,*for plaintiff; *Daniel,*for defendant.

The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the plain till’ in error must recover his costs.
#### Roscoe H. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Warden, Maurice SIGLER, Respondent.

Civ. No. 1775 L.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska.

Sept. 9, 1970.

MEMORANDUM

URBOM, District Judge.

The petitioner has tendéred to this court for consideration documents titled *107“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, “Statement regarding Exhaustion of State Remedy,” and “Forma Pauperis Affidavit.”

The petitioner, Roscoe H. Jackson, is presently incarcerated in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex pursuant to his conviction in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, for the crime of attempted burglary. A jury found him guilty and on January 22, 1969, a sentence of two to five years was imposed.

In his petition Jackson alleges his conviction is invalid for three reasons: first, illegal evidence was admitted in his trial; second, suggestions were “made to the jury”; and third, he was not provided with counsel “during the early stages of the criminal proceeding.” In addition, the petition includes an allegation which does not contest the validity of his conviction but relates to an indigent’s right to receive a free trial transcript or other records of his criminal proceeding for use in preparing a motion to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence so that he may collaterally attack his conviction in the state courts.

This court cannot and should not exercise jurisdiction over these issues unless the same issues have already been considered by the Supreme Court of Nebraska or unless it would be futile for the petitioner to present the issues to the Supreme Court of Nebraska. That court has not been afforded the opportunity to decide the issues, since Jackson did not appeal his conviction or the ruling of the District Court of Douglas County regarding a trial transcript. No other effort to obtain relief from the state court has been made by the petitioner. I cannot say that the Supreme Court of Nebraska would not grant the petitioner relief if it were given the opportunity. Until it is given that opportunity I cannot decide the issues Jackson seeks to have decided.

An appropriate order dismissing the petition without prejudice will be entered.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00761-CR

Lewis Carl Hunt, Appell

ant v. The State of Texas , Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-99-0041, HO NORABLE CHARL ES R. RAMSAY, JUDG E PRESIDING Appe llantLe

wi s C arl Hu n t w as pla ced on c ommunit y supe rvisio n aft er being convi cted of two coun

ts of a ggrav ated as sau

l t. SeeTe x. Pen. Code An n. § 22.02 (West 1994). He now app eals fro m an or der re vok ing t hat sup er vision and imposing s ent ence of impriso nment for ten years. Appellant’s co ur t - ap po int ed at t o rne y filed a b r ief c o nc lud ing t ha t t he ap pe al is fri volous and wi

thout m eri t. The b rief meets th e r eq ui re men ts o f Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ), by pre sent ing a pr ofe ssio nal evalua t ion o f the re co rd demo nst ra t ing why t her e ar e no ar gu ab le grounds t o be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 48 8 U. S. 75 ( 198 8); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 78) ; Currie v. State , 516 S. W.2d 684 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 74) ; Jackson v. State , 485 S. W.2d 553 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 72) ; Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of

counsel ’s b

rief was del iv ered t o a ppe llant, and a ppe llantwas advise d o f his right to exam in e the appel

la te recor d and to file

a pro se brie f. No pro se bri ef h as been fi le d.2 We have r eviewe d t he record and counsel ’s b rief and agree that the appeal

is fri volous and wit ho ut mer it . We find no t hing in the re cord tha

t mi ght a rguab l y supp ort the ap peal. Co unsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The order rev oki ng c omm uni ty s uperv i sion i s af f i rmed.

__________________________________________ Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 8, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
§ 1752.28 Interest accrual. ( a ) The Agency may determine to stop accruing interest if the account has remained delinquent for a period of 18 months or more, and the Agency has determined, in its sole discretion, that it will not recover the full outstanding principal balance on the loan.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator may waive the accrual of interest on any outstanding delinquent debt, if in the sole determination of the Administrator, such waiver facilitates and maximizes the Government's recovery of the debt, such as under a voluntary foreclosure by the Borrower.