alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1806.21 General. ( a ) *Authority.* This subpart prescribes the policies and procedures to be followed in implementing the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The provisions of these Acts are applicable to Rural Development and Farm Service Agency, herein referred to as the “Agency” authorities permitting financing of buildings of any type now located in or to be located in special flood or mudslide prone areas as designated by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and any machinery, equipment, fixtures and furnishings contained or to be contained therein. This subpart does not apply to Farm Service Agency, Farm Loan Programs and to Rural Rental Housing, Rural Cooperative Housing, or Farm Labor Housing programs of the Rural Housing Service.
( b ) *Background.* The Congress has found that annual losses throughout the nation caused by floods and mudslides are increasing at an alarming rate, largely as a result of the accelerated development and concentration of populations in areas subject to floods and mudslides. The availability of Federal funds in the form of loans, grants, guarantees, insurance and other forms of financial assistance are often determining factors in the utilization of land and the location and construction of industrial, commercial and residential facilities.
( c ) *Scope.* The National Flood Insurance Program (the program) was authorized and created because the private insurance industry has been unable to provide insurance coverage at reasonable prices for such natural disasters as floods and mudslides. Subsidized and affordable insurance has been made available under the Act through an agreement between the Federal Insurance Administration and the National Flood Insurers Association.
[39 FR 17093, May 13, 1974, as amended at 69 FR 69103, Nov. 26, 2004; 72 FR 64121, Nov. 15, 2007; 80 FR 9865, Feb. 24, 2015]
#### [The State ex rel.] Evans, Appellant, *v.*Columbus Department of Law et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept, of Law*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 174.]

(No. 98-462

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 23, 1998.)

*175
      *Clarence R. Evans, pro se.*

*Janet E. Jackson,*Columbus City Attorney, and *Patricia A. Delaney,*Assistant City Attorney, for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

Evans asserts that he is entitled to the requested writ of mandamus pursuant to R.C. 2935.09. For the reasons that follow, we find this contention to be meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

First, as the court of appeals correctly held, R.C. 2935.09 does not mandate prosecution of all offenses charged by affidavit. Although R.C. 2935.09 provides that a “private citizen having knowledge of the facts” shall file with a judge, clerk of court, or magistrate an affidavit charging an offense committed in order to cause the arrest or prosecution of a person charged, it must be read *in pari materia*with R.C. 2935.10, which prescribes the subsequent procedure to be followed. *State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner*(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 273, 680 N.E.2d 1238, 1239. R.C. 2935.10 does not place any duty upon city prosecutors to prosecute misdemeanors charged by affidavit filed under R.C. 2935.09.

In addition, a prosecuting attorney will not be compelled to prosecute except when the failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion. *State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d 180, 184. Evans did not allege sufficient facts in his complaint evidencing that the city prosecutor abused her discretion by determining that the charges lacked probable cause. See *State ex rel. Murr v. Meyer*(1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 46, 47, 516 N.E.2d 234, 235, affirming the dismissal of a similar mandamus claim.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 194 

In the Matter of Patrolmen's 

Benevolent Association of the 

City of New York, Inc., et al.,

 Appellants,

 v.

City of New York, et al.,

 Respondents.

Submitted by Ronald G. Dunn, for appellants.

Submitted by Ellen Ravitch, for respondents.

Harry Nespoli, amicus curiae.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme

Court, New York County, with directions to dismiss the proceeding

upon the ground of mootness (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,

50 NY2d 707, 718 [1980]). Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott,

Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur.

Decided October 27, 2015
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.653 Objective.

The objective of the HPG program is to repair or rehabilitate individual housing, rental properties, or co-ops owned and/or occupied by very low- and low-income rural persons. Grantees will provide eligible homeowners, owners of rental properties, and owners of co-ops with financial assistance through loans, grants, interest reduction payments or other comparable financial assistance for necessary repairs and rehabilitation. Further, individual housing that is owner occupied may qualify for replacement housing when it is determined by the grantee that the housing is not economically feasible for repair or rehabilitation, except as specified in § 1944.659.

[58 FR 21894, Apr. 26, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 26209, May 13, 1997]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 210 

To require retail establishments that use mobile device tracking technology 

to display notices to that effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require retail establishments that use mobile device 

tracking technology to display notices to that effect. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NOTICES REGARDING USE OF MOBILE DEVICE 

4 TRACKING TECHNOLOGY BY RETAIL ESTAB5 LISHMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person who owns or operates 

7 a retail establishment and uses mobile device tracking 

8 technology in such establishment shall display in a promi9 nent location in such establishment a notice that such 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 210 IH

1 technology is in use and that individuals can avoid being 

2 tracked by turning off their mobile devices. 

3 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade 

5 Commission shall promulgate regulations under section 

6 553 of title 5, United States Code, to implement sub7 section (a). 

8 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

9 (a) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.— 

10 A violation of section 1(a) or a regulation promulgated 

11 pursuant to section 1(b) shall be treated as an unfair or 

12 deceptive act or practice in violation of a regulation under 

13 section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

14 (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or deceptive 

15 acts or practices. 

16 (b) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—The Federal Trade 

17 Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, 

18 by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, pow19 ers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provi20 sions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 

21 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this 

22 Act. Any person who violates this Act or the regulations 

23 promulgated under this Act shall be subject to the pen24 alties and entitled to the privileges and immunities pro25 vided in the Federal Trade Commission Act. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 210 IH

1 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) MOBILE DEVICE.—The term ‘‘mobile de4 vice’’ means— 

5 (A) a mobile telephone; or 

6 (B) any device that uses or provides access 

7 to commercial mobile data service (as defined in 

8 section 6001 of the Middle Class Tax Relief 

9 and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 

10 1401)). 

11 (2) MOBILE DEVICE TRACKING TECHNOLOGY.— 

12 The term ‘‘mobile device tracking technology’’ means 

13 technology that tracks the movement of an indi14 vidual using the radio signal emitted by a mobile de15 vice. 

16 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

17 This Act shall take effect on the date that is 180 days 

18 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
§ 205.680 General. ( a ) Persons subject to the Act who believe they are adversely affected by an adverse action of the National Organic Program's Program Manager may appeal such decision to the Administrator.
( b ) Persons subject to the Act who believe they are adversely affected by an adverse action of a State organic program may appeal such decision to the State organic program's governing State official, who will initiate handling of the appeal pursuant to appeal procedures approved by the Secretary.
( c ) Persons subject to the Act who believe they are adversely affected by an adverse action of a certifying agent may appeal such decision to the Administrator, *Except,* that, when the person is subject to an approved State organic program, the appeal must be made to the State organic program.
( d ) Persons subject to the Act who believe they are adversely affected by an adverse action of a certifying agent or a State organic program may request mediation as provided in § 205.663.
( e ) All appeals must comply with the procedural requirements in § 205.681(c) and (d).
( f ) All written communications between parties involved in appeal proceedings must be sent to the recipient's place of business by a delivery service which provides dated return receipts.
( g ) All appeals must be reviewed, heard, and decided by persons not involved with the adverse action being appealed.
[88 FR 3626, Jan. 19, 2023]
#### § 1778.35 Subsequent grants.

Subsequent grants will be processed in accordance with the requirements set forth in this part. The initial and subsequent grants made to complete a previously approved project must comply with the maximum grant requirements set forth in § 1778.11.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Jami Claire, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No.: 4:20-cv-00020-MW/MAF

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Pursuant to N.D. Local R. 11.1(H)(1)(b), Anya A. Marino, respectfully 

asks this Court to grant her leave to withdraw as co-counsel for Plaintiffs in 

the above-captioned matter. Ms. Marino is no longer employed at Harvard 

Law School, which had represented the Plaintiffs.

By May 2, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs provided notice to Plaintiffs of 

Ms. Marino’s intent to withdraw from representation. Plaintiffs consent to Ms. 

Marino’s withdrawal of representation. Plaintiffs continue to be represented 

by the other attorneys for all Plaintiffs in this case. Contact information for 

Plaintiffs’ remaining counsel may be found in the signature block below.

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 168 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendants’ counsel does not oppose the relief requested in this 

motion.

WHEREFORE, Anya A. Marino respectfully requests this Court to 

grant leave for her to withdraw as counsel and enter an Order granting this 

motion, authorizing Ms. Marino to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiffs 

and directing all future communications concerning this matter be sent to 

remaining counsel of record.

Dated: May 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Anya A. Marino

Anya A. Marino

SIMONE CHRISS

Fla. Bar No. 124062

simone.chriss@southernlegal.org

JODI SIEGEL

Fla. Bar No. 511617

jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org

Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.

1229 NW 12th Avenue

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 271-8890

DANIEL TILLEY

Fla. Bar No. 102882

dtilley@aclufl.org

CAROLINE MCNAMARA

Fla. Bar No. 1038312

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler St., Suite 400,

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 168 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 3
3

ATTORNEYS FOR ALL PLAINTIFFS

JEFFREY HEARNE

Fla. Bar No. 512060

jhearne@legalservicesmiami.org

JOCELYN ARMAND

Fla. Bar No.44264

jarmand@legalservicesmiami.org

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc.

4343 W Flagler Street, Suite 100

Miami, FL 33134

(305) 438-2403

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

MURPHY

LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(F), this Motion contains 165 words, 

excluding the case caption, signature block, this certification, and the 

certificate of service.

/s/ Anya A. Marino

Anya A. Marino

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 168 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6530

ROBERT DALE STRICKLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director Department of Corrections; LARRY EDMONDS, 

Warden Lunenburg Correctional Center; NURSE CLEMENT, Medical 

Administrator Lunenburg Correctional Center; NURSE LAWRENCE, Pharmacy 

nurse, LPN; NURSE LOWRANCE, Head Nurse, LCC LPN; NURSE 

ABERNATHY, LPN; NURSE THAXTON, LPN; NURSE EDMONDS, LPN; 

NURSE JACKSON, LPN Doctor’s Assistant; NURSE VAUGHN, LPN; NURSE 

ALEXANDER, LPN; NURSE IQBAL, current chief medical officer LCC; DR. 

NWAOKOCHA, Chief of medical at LCC prior to Feb. 2019; T. WEBB, Food 

Service Administrator LCC; MS. GREG, Statewide dietitian,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00637-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Dale Strickler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Dale Strickler, a former Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying class certification, denying a preliminary injunction, dismissing as moot 

Strickler’s motions to expedite review and amend the complaint, and ordering Strickler to 

file an amended complaint in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). With the exception of the denial of Strickler’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction, the order Strickler seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor 

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.*

 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. To the extent Strickler’s notice of appeal can be construed as a Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition for permission to appeal the denial of the class certification, 

permission is denied.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

* The denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). However, Strickler requested immediate release from custody in light 

of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the record indicates he has since been released from 

custody. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot this portion of his appeal. See Rendelman v. 

Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]s a general rule, a prisoner’s transfer or 

release from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctive . . . relief with respect to 

his incarceration there.”).
#### ALEXANDER v. RAPKIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

1. Landlord and Tenant (§ 297*)—Summary Proceedings—Defenses.

It is a defense to summary proceedings that no personal demand for rent was made on the tenant.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1291; Dec. Dig. § 297.*]

*1182. Landlord and Tenant (§ 298*)—Summary Proceedings—Issues.

In summary proceedings, where the tenant claimed that the amount due him from the landlord for his services as janitor exceeded the amount of the installment of rent due, the tenant was entitled to have that defense submitted.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1276-1280; Dec. Dig. § 298.*]

3. Landlord and Tenant (§ 296*)—Summary Proceedings—Defenses.

In summary proceedings, evidence by the landlord, to rebut a plea of surrender, that subsequent to the alleged surrender he obtained a final order in summary proceedings, showed a termination of the lease, so that he was not entitled to maintain a second summary proceeding.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1272-1275, 1283; Dec. Dig. § 296.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.

Summary proceedings by Selma Alexander against Scholm Rapkin, sued as Sam Rapkin. From a final order for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Jacob M. Leibner, of New York City, for appellant.

Bernard Alexander, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

BIJUR, J.

The petition is in the usual form. Among the defenses interposed, in addition to the general denial, are surrender and a money claim for services as janitor, which is set forth both as a counterclaim and as a defense.

[1] The case appears to have been tried rather informally, and the record is not very clear; but it appears sufficiently that no personal demand for the rent had been made upon the tenant, and he was, therefore, entitled to a dismissal of the petition.

[2] It is also clear that the rent was payable semimonthly, and the • amount claimed by the tenant to have been due him was greater than the semimonthly rent due when the petition was filed, or at the time of the alleged demand; hence the tenant was entitled to have this defense presented to the jury.

[3] Finally, the landlord, apparently to negative the plea of surrender, showed that subsequent to the alleged surrender he had obtained a final order in summary proceedings, and he claimed that this conclusively established the relationship of landlord and tenant at the time of the surrender. But the same evidence indicated that the lease had by that final order been terminated. Consequently the present proceedings, brought under the same lease,, could not be maintained.

Order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### §§ 205.623-205.639 [Reserved]
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



          We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Aloette Cosmetics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No.
33-4918) of our report dated February 20, 1996, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Aloette
Cosmetics, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for the
years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, which report is included in this
Form 10-KSB.


  Coopers & Lybrand L.L. P.


  2400 Eleven Penn Center
  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  March 27, 1996
Nicor
      Inc.


Form
      10-K


Exhibit
      32.02





**CERTIFICATION**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nicor Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  the
      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the twelve month
      period ended December 31, 2006 (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
            February 23, 2007
            
            /s/
                RICHARD L. HAWLEYRichard
                L. HawleyExecutive
                Vice President and Chief Financial
                Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Stroke.                    

*Date:*                         December 14, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Richard D. Crosland, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-0635,                         *Rc218u@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 9, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-28841 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P