alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 13, 1979.

M. P. No. 79-410.

#### Centredale Sign Company *v.*John H. Norberg, Tax Administrator of the State of Rhode Island.

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*John D. Lynch,*for petitioner, *Dennis J. Roberts II,*Attorney General, *William G. Brody,*Assistant Attorney General, *Perry Shatkin,*Chief Legal Officer (Taxation), for respondent.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
§ 1734.27 Application selection provisions. ( a ) Applications will be evaluated competitively by the Agency and will be ranked in accordance with § 1734.26. Applications will then be awarded generally in rank order until all grant funds are expended, subject to paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. RUS will make determinations regarding the reasonableness of all numbers; dollar levels; rates; the nature and design of the project; costs; location; and other characteristics of the application and the project to determine the number of points assigned to a grant application for all selection criteria.
( b ) Regardless of the number of points an application receives in accordance with § 1734.26, the Administrator may, based on a review of the applications in accordance with the requirements of this subpart: ( 1 ) Limit the number of applications selected for projects located in any one State during a fiscal year;
( 2 ) Limit the number of selected applications for a particular type of project;
( 3 ) Select an application receiving fewer points than another higher scoring application if there are insufficient funds during a particular funding period to select the higher scoring application. In this case, however, the Administrator will provide the applicant of the higher scoring application the opportunity to reduce the amount of its grant request to the amount of funds available. If the applicant agrees to lower its grant request, it must certify that the purposes of the project can be met, and the Administrator must determine the project is financially feasible at the lower amount in accordance with § 1734.25(e). An applicant or multiple applicants affected under this paragraph will have the opportunity to be considered for loan financing in accordance with subparts C and D of this part.
( c ) RUS will not approve a grant if RUS determines that: ( 1 ) The applicant's proposal does not indicate financial feasibility or is not sustainable in accordance with the requirements of § 1734.25(e);
( 2 ) The applicant's proposal indicates technical flaws, which, in the opinion of RUS, would prevent successful implementation, operation, or sustainability of the project;
( 3 ) Other applications would provide more benefit to rural America based on a review of the financial and technical information submitted in accordance with § 1734.25(e).
( 4 ) Any other aspect of the applicant's proposal fails to adequately address any requirement of this subpart or contains inadequacies which would, in the opinion of RUS, undermine the ability of the project to meet the general purpose of this subpart or comply with policies of the DLT Program contained in § 1734.2.
( d ) RUS may reduce the amount of the applicant's grant based on insufficient program funding for the fiscal year in which the project is reviewed. RUS will discuss its findings informally with the applicant and make every effort to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the applicant. Any discussions with the applicant and agreements made with regard to a reduced grant amount will be confirmed in writing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US CURRENCY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                         1,170,060
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,466,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                     207,088
<INVENTORY>                                    2,218,306
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,507,301
<PP&E>                                         6,350,154
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,463,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                13,782,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,363,119
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          47,920
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,718,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  13,712,722
<SALES>                                       25,706,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              25,706,735
<CGS>                                         15,108,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 23,596,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (54,511)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                91,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,073,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (650,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,110,712
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,712,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.59
        


</TABLE>
#### § 1735.3 Availability of forms.

Single copies of RUS forms and publications cited in this part are available from Program Support Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. These RUS forms and publications may be reproduced. The terms “RUS form”, “RUS standard form”, and “RUS specification” have the same meanings as the terms “REA form” “REA standard form”, and “REA specification”, respectively, unless otherwise indicated.

[54 FR 13351, Apr. 3, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 66441, Dec. 27, 1994; 62 FR 46870, Sept. 5, 1997]
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Keith Kelson, Chief Financial Officer of Securus Technologies, Inc., certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 
|   | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
|   | /s/KEITH KELSON             |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | Keith Kelson                |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer*** |
|   | May 11, 2007                |
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **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 Bowlin Travel Centers Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Michael L. Bowlin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 Date: April 27, 2005/s/  MICHAEL L. BOWLINMichael L. Bowlin
      Chief Executive Officer, Bowlin Travel Centers,
      Inc.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1811 

To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

areas included in Florida System Unit P–16, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. RADEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Financial 

Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System areas included in Florida System Unit 

P–16, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL FROM JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM OF AREAS IN5 CLUDED IN FLORIDA SYSTEM UNIT P–16. 

6 The Secretary of the Interior shall revise maps re7 ferred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1811 IH

1 Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) as necessary to remove from 

2 Florida System Unit P–16— 

3 (1) the area known as Royal Marco Point on 

4 Marco Island, Collier County, Florida; and 

5 (2) the area known as La Peninsula of the Isles 

6 of Capri in Naples, Collier County, Florida. 

7 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF INSURANCE UNDER THE NA8 TIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR 

9 AREAS REMOVED FROM FLORIDA SYSTEM 

10 UNIT P–16. 

11 Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

12 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4023) shall not apply with respect to a 

13 property located in an area described in paragraph (1) or 

14 (2) of section 1 unless— 

15 (1) the Administrator of the Federal Emer16 gency Management Agency determines that such 

17 property would have been declared by a duly con18 stituted State or local zoning authority, or other au19 thorized public body, to be in violation of State or 

20 local laws, regulations, or ordinances as described in 

21 such section 1316 without regard to whether section 

22 1 of this Act had been in effect at the time of the 

23 declaration by such State or local zoning authority 

24 or such other authorized public body; or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1811 IH

1 (2) after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

2 a duly constituted State or local zoning authority, or 

3 other authorized public body, finds such property to 

4 be in violation of State or local laws, regulations, or 

5 ordinances described in such section 1316. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6856

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES A. BUTLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:91-cr-00044)

Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant II, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James A. Butler appeals the district court’s orders

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and his motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that the

appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Butler, No. 3:91-cr-00044 (E.D.

Va. Apr. 17 & May 3, 2007). 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of David Jacobs, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of’ the respondent chancellor, dated June 28, 1978, which sustained a rating of unsatisfactory given petitioner for the 1976-1977 school year, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 9, 1979, which dismissed the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled and the matter is remanded to respondents for a new review pursuant to section 5.3.4 of the by-laws of respondent board of education. Petitioner is a science teacher at a Queens intermediate school. In June, 1977 he received a rating of unsatisfactory for the 1976-1977 school year from Desiree Greenidge, who was then the school’s acting principal and rating officer. Petitioner appealed the rating to the respondent chancellor and the matter was reviewed by a chancellor’s committee. The reviewing conference, which was extended over several days, was attended by pe*624titioner and several school officials. A series of documents was presented into evidence, many of them letters written by Greenidge accusing petitioner of unsatisfactory performance in various aspects of his work. At the outset of the review, petitioner requested that Greenidge’s letters be excluded unless Greenidge attended the conference and was available for cross-examination. The request was denied. Greenidge, who was ill at the time, did not appear at any of the review sessions. On the basis of the testimony and evidence submitted, and upon the committee’s recommendation, the chancellor sustained the unsatisfactory rating. The determination must be annulled since the reviewing procedure afforded petitioner did not conform with the board’s by-laws. Under section 5.3.4B of the by-laws a teacher whose rating is being reviewed by a chancellor’s committee is entitled "to be confronted by witnesses, to call witnesses and to introduce any relevant evidence.” Since petitioner was not given the opportunity to confront his principal accuser and rating officer, he was not afforded his rights under section 5.3.4B (see *Matter of Brown v Board of Educ.,*42 AD2d 702). Although Greenidge’s failure to attend was not due to any misconduct on respondent’s part, a new review is required, Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### § 1782.22 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this part which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law and is determined to be in the Government's interest. Requests for exceptions must be made in writing by the State Director and supported with documentation to explain the adverse effect on the Government's interest, propose alternative course(s) of action, and show how the adverse affect will be eliminated or minimized if the exception is granted. The exception decision will be documented in writing, signed by the Administrator, and retained in the files.
#### In the Matter of Division of State Police, Respondent, v Werner H. Kramarsky, as Commissioner of the Division of Human Rights, Appellant.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered October 24, 1979 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to stay a hearing pending the resolution of the petitioner’s application to the Commissioner of the Division of Human Rights seeking to have the proceedings dismissed. The dispositive issue upon this appeal is whether or not the Division of Human Rights loses jurisdiction to proceed upon a complaint where it fails to proceed in accordance with the time limits of section 297 of the Executive Law. It is well established that the statutory time limitations are directory only and are not mandatory *(Matter of Sarkisian Bros, v State Div. of Human Rights,*48 NY2d 816; *Matter of Spica v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.,*73 AD2d 762; *Matter of Gamble v State Human Rights Appeal Bd.,*71 AD2d 165). Proceedings properly initiated before the Division of Human Rights may not be dismissed at any step in the administrative proceedings solely because of such delay *(Matter of Spica v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., supra).*Any issue as to delay may be addressed to the courts upon review of the administrative proceedings and, therefore, there is no basis for any exercise of jurisdiction in the nature of prohibition upon application pursuant to CPLR article 78. Accordingly, Special Term did not have jurisdiction to grant the incidental relief of a stay of the administrative proceedings. Order reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpatial cross-correlation of Antarctic Sea ice and seabed topographyA time series of derived sea ice concentrations as observed about Antarctica by the Nimbus-7 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite in 1983 is considered. The degree of spatial cross correlation between these data and seabed topography is quantified. The approach is to implement a statistical image processing filter designed to extract local patterns of spatial cross correlation over the entire sea ice field as it undergoes daily changes. Throughout the sea ice, it was found that large scale variations in sea ice concentration correlate systematically with variations in the topography of the seabed. Generally speaking, high concentrations of sea ice occur over deep ocean, whereas areas of encavement, early dissipation and polynya formation develop over topographic features of high elevation. The latter was studied in detail with respect to the features Maud Rise, Astrid Ridge and the continental shelf in the Cosmonaut and Ross Seas. In each case, it is shown that an encavement in sea ice, a polynya, or both develops in the vicinity of the feature in question. As these results are quantified in terms of spatial cross correlation, a potential role is inferred for seabed topography in such fluctuations in the sea ice about Antarctica.Document ID19900017135Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsDeveaux, Richard D.*(Princeton Univ. NJ, United States)*Phelan, Michael J.*(Princeton Univ. NJ, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryOceanographyReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186815NAS 1.26:186815Accession Number90N26451Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-1763Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017135.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Appeal No. 79-159.

#### Joseph Falvo *et al. v.*Kathleen Bloom.

This is an automobile negligence action in which the defendant is before us on an appeal from the denial by a Superior Court justice of her motion for new trial following the jury’s return of verdicts for Joseph Falvo and his son, Stephen, and the estate of Joseph’s father. The total aggregate of the three verdicts is $10,000. Pursuant to the provisions of our Rule 16(g), the plaintiffs have asked that we summarily dismiss the defendant’s motion because the issue on appeal is factual and there is abundant evidence to support the denial of the new trial. Oral arguments on this motion were heard on October 4, 1979.

A new trial on the issue of damages will not be granted unless the trial judge is satisfied that there is a demonstrable disparity between the amount awarded and the pain and suffering shown to have been endured as a consequence of the injuries sustained. Our examination of the record convinces us *884that the trial justice correctly applied the controlling principles enunciated in *Wood*v. *Paolino,*112 R.I. 753, 315 A.2d 744 (1974). Here, the trial justice, in commenting on the jury’s award, remarked: “I think this jury really responded to the merits of the case.” It is obvious that the trial justice’s conscience was not shocked by the jury’s award and neither are ours. The plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

/. *Renn Olenn,*for plaintiffs. *Carroll, McHugh b Pirraglia, John G. Carroll, Edward E. Dillon, Jr.,*for defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, and the judgments appealed from are affirmed.
§ 1776.13 Administrative expenses. ( a ) Subject to the limitations provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, the grant recipient may use grant funds to pay administrative expenses associated with providing DWS loans.
( b ) Administrative expenses incurred in any calendar year which exceed 10 percent of the DWS loans made by the grant recipient during that same period do not qualify for reimbursement.
( c ) Administrative expenses incurred prior to the execution of the grant agreement by RUS do not qualify for reimbursement.
( d ) Allowability of administrative expense costs shall be determined in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
[70 FR 28788, May 19, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 76005, Dec. 19, 2014]
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 .*

§ 1435.401 CCC sugar inventory disposition. ( a ) CCC will dispose of inventory in the following manner, if CCC has not determined there is an emergency shortage of sugar for human consumption in the domestic market: ( 1 ) By sale to bioenergy producers under the Feedstock Flexibility Program as specified in subpart G of this part,
( 2 ) By transfer to sugarcane and sugar beet processors under the Processor Sugar Payment-In-Kind Program as specified in subpart F of this part,
( 3 ) By the buyback of certificates of quota eligibility (CQEs), or
( 4 ) By the use of any other authority for the disposition of CCC-owned sugar for nonfood use or otherwise in a manner that does not increase the net quantity of sugar available for human consumption in the United States.
( b ) CCC may use any of its authority for the disposition of CCC-owned sugar, if CCC has determined there is an emergency shortage of sugar for human consumption in the domestic market caused by war, flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster, or similar event, as determined by CCC.