alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.1208 Award procedures and compliance. ( a ) The Awarding Agency will inform applicants seeking consideration of funding under this part of the agency's disposition of the applicant's request;
( b ) Except as provided in § 1980.1206(e), awards made under this part shall be managed and serviced by the Awarding Agency;
( c ) Except as provided in § 1980.1206(e), the Agency shall be responsible for oversight and compliance of projects utilizing authority under this part;
( d ) Requirements for providing retail broadband service or wholesale broadband service under §§ 1980.1206, 1980.1207, and this section shall be made part of the applicable loan or grant agreement between the recipient and the Awarding Agency, or, with respect to guarantees and intermediaries, between the program participants and the recipients;
( e ) The applicable agreement must provide that non-compliance with this part or use of funds for retail broadband service or wholesale broadband service without having received agency authority to do so as required in this part, shall: ( 1 ) Be an automatic event of default under the applicable agreement; and
( 2 ) Require that the associated loan or grant funds used in violation of this part be disallowed or returned immediately to the awarding agency or to the program participant for eligible relending.
#### § 1910.101 Preface.

This subpart (§§ 1910.101 through 1910.150) describes the procedure to be used by Rural Development in obtaining commercial credit reports. A nonrefundable fee, set forth in § 1910.106(d) of this Instruction will be collected from the applicant, general contractor or dealer contractor who is the subject of the report. This subpart is inapplicable to Farm Service Agency, Farm Loan Programs.

[52 FR 6498, Mar. 4, 1987, as amended at 72 FR 64122, Nov. 15, 2007; 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015]
#### § 201.12a Seed mixtures.

Seed mixtures intended for seeding/planting purposes shall be designated as a mixture on the label and each seed component shall be listed on the label in the order of predominance.

[85 FR 40579, July 7, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.659 Replacement housing. Replacement housing applies only to existing, individual owner occupied housing. Replacement housing does *not* apply to rental properties (single-unit or multiple-unit) or to cooperative housing projects. The grantee is responsible for determining the extent of the repairs and rehabilitation prior to any assistance given to an individual homeowner. If the cost of such repairs and rehabilitation is not economically feasible, then the grantee may consider replacing the existing housing with replacement housing, subject to the following: ( a ) The HPG grantee: ( 1 ) Shall document the total costs for all repairs and rehabilitation of the existing housing; and
( 2 ) Shall document the basis for the determination that the costs for all repairs and rehabilitation for the existing housing are not economically feasible.
( b ) The individual homeowner: ( 1 ) Must meet all requirements of § 1944.661;
( 2 ) Must lack the income and repayment ability to replace their existing home without the assistance of the HPG grantee;
( 3 ) Must have been determined by the HPG grantee and RHS to be unable to afford a loan under section 502 for replacement housing; and
( 4 ) Must be able to afford the replacement housing on terms set forth by the HPG grantee.
( c ) The existing home: ( 1 ) Must be demolished as part of the process of providing replacement housing. It will be determined by the grantee and individual homeowner when is the best time for demolition; and
( 2 ) May not be sold to make way for the replacement housing.
( d ) The replacement housing: ( 1 ) May be either new housing or a dwelling brought onto the site of the existing housing;
( 2 ) May use no more than $15,000 in HPG funds;
( 3 ) Must meet all applicable requirements of 7 CFR 3550.57; and
( 4 ) May not be sold within 5 years of completion of the project.
( e ) Any moneys received by the homeowner from selling salvaged material after demolishing the existing home must be used towards the replacement housing.
[62 FR 26209, May 13, 1997]
#### Lee *vs.*The Commonwealth.

[Hr. Owsley and Mr. Kincaid for plaintiff: Attorney General Morehead for defendant.]

From the Lincoln County Court.

*April*30.

The law requires that lists of taxable property shall be given in *upon oath;*and a refusal to swear to a list, is tantamount to a refusal to give it in.

It is the duty of the commissioners of tax, to apply at the residence of each citizen, for a list of his taxable property; & the citizen incurs no penalty for failing or refusing to give in his list, unless he' is called upon for it at home.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The County Court of Lincoln having adjudged against George Lee, one hundred and forty nine dollars sixty one cents, as treble tax, for his refusing to take the prescribed oath respecting a list of his taxable property which he had handed to the commissioner of the revenue — this writ of error is prosecuted for reversing that order.

Though the statute authorized the assessment of a fine and treble tax only for *failing to give in a proper list,*yet, as the law required Lee, as the owner of taxable property, to give in his list on oath, his refusal to verify, by the requisite affidavit, the list offered by himself was a refusal to *give in a list as required by law;*and was as much so, in judgment of law, as would have been a refusal altogether to give any list whatever.

But the statute made it the duty of the commissioner to apply for a list at Lee’s own house, which he never did; and Lee was liable to be fined and treble-taxed only for refusing *upon proper*application, to give a legal list of his taxable property. And therefore, as such a penal enactment should not be extended beyond its clear and *312direct import, we are of the opinion that Lee was not, in a I.egal sense, guilty of *contumacy*had he even refused to give any list whatever, unless the commissioner would make such a requisition as the law required him to make, it was Lee’s legal duty to give him *any*information respecting his property.

The owners of taxable property could not be expected to be able to give, under the sanction of an oath, a perfect list of every taxable article whenever and wherever the commissioner might happen to meet them; and therefore the law imposed no such unreasonable burthen *as a legal duty.*

Consequently, as the commissioner had not made application at Lee’s house, the County Court erred in adjudging him guilty of illegallyrefusing to give in his list, or of illegally refusing to verify, by an oath, the list which he gratuitously offered to give.

And therefore, it is considered that the order be set aside and held for nought.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION

Case No. 3:19-md-2885

This document relates to:

Ferman C. Barnes

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

Case No. 8:20-cv-05382

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Comes now STEVE N. SNYDER, with the law firm of WILLIAMS MCDANIEL, 

PLLC, and gives notice that he will appear as counsel of record for Ferman C. Barnes in the 

Master Docket pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 3 [ECF No. 4]. Mr. Snyder has completed the 

administrative requirements outlined in Pretrial Order No. 3, and has been granted admission 

pro hac vice pursuant to paragraph IV.A of Pretrial Order No. 3. Counsel respectfully requests 

that all notices, correspondence, filings and other papers in the Master Docket of MDL 2885 

be served upon him at the address listed below.

This the 23rd day of January, 2023.

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLIAMS McDANIEL, PLLC

By: /s/ Steve N. Snyder

Steve N. Snyder (#25703)

717 S. White Station Road, Suite 1

Memphis, Tennessee 38117

(901) 766-0887 (Phone)

(901) 766-0915 (Facsimile)

ssnyder@williamsmcdaniel.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3637 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of January, 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court and served using the CM/ECF 

system.

/s/ Steve N. Snyder

Steve N. Snyder 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3637 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 2
#### Nomura (America) Corp., Respondent, v. Al Burns, Inc., Appellant.

— Judgment entered February 7, 1964, after trial by the court without a jury, reversed, on the facts, and a new trial ordered with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The action is for goods sold and delivered. The factual issue is whether the goods were delivered. It appears that defendant corporation was a wholesale dealer in shoes and made frequent purchases from the plaintiff. Al Burns, for whom the corporation was named, was the principal stockholder and personally conducted all the affairs of the corporation. He died shortly *806after the suit was instituted. Transactions between the parties ran as high as $120,000 a month, involving a great many individual sales. Plaintiff concedes that Bums’ reputation in the industry was of the very highest. At one time early in 1961, 10 invoices for goods sold to defendant by plaintiff were unpaid. Plaintiff sent its salesman, a Mr. Horn, to see Burns. Burns stated that not all the goods represented by the invoices had been delivered and that he would pay any invoice for which he had receipted delivery of the goods. Seven such receipts were produced and Burns paid them forthwith. The remaining three receipts were never found, and Burns refused to pay for the goods represented by them. It would serve no purpose to detail the testimony pro and con as to the delivery and nondelivery of these three shipments, none of which was conclusive, or even satisfactory. We believe the interests of justice would best be served by producing certain testimony which was entirely disregarded. It appeared that plaintiff had an exclusive sales agent, whose name appears in the record as Matworth Corporation. This agent kept the records on sales and plaintiff apparently had no record of any transaction until Matworth submitted to it a bill from which plaintiff made up a voucher. Just what the procedure was as regards delivery documents was not shown. No witness having knowledge of these facts testified. If, as might be suspected, these records were handled by Matworth, the person in charge should be able to testify whether a receipt from Burns ever existed, and what records substantiate that claim. With that testimony, the highly speculative outcome of this case would rest on a more certain base. Concur — Botein, P. J., Steuer and MoNally, JJ.; Capozzoli and Tilzer, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum by Tilzer, J.: I dissent and would affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $12,520.06. The trial court found that “ I do not believe anything ” that the secretary of the defendant said, that the book kept by the deceased A1 Burns showing in pencil the daily receipts of merchandise by the defendant contained crucial blank spaces, crucial erasures and entries in reverse chronological order (the book was ordered impounded), and concluded that the evidence established that the merchandise was delivered and received by the defendant. *(Amend*v. *Hurley,*293 N. Y. 587, 594.)
AUG27ZO1Z

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IXMail Code ORA-1

75 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105

RE: Submittal of Maricopa County Rule 313 revising the Maricopa County Portion of the

Arizona State Implementation Plan

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld:

Consistent with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 49-104, 49-404, 49-406, and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, § § 51.102 through 51.104, the Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Maricopa County Rule 313: Incinerators, Bum-Off Ovens, and

Crematoriums, adopted May 9, 2012, as a revision to the Maricopa County portion of the

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision strengthens and supersedes the existingnile as outlined in number three ofthe SIP Completeness Checklist.

The revisions approved in Rule 313 include a new definition of parts reclamation units; newrequirements for filing an Operations & Maintenance Plan; new administrative requirements; and

new requirements for monitoring and record keeping.

The SIP revision consists of a document demonstrating that the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part

51 Appendix V are satisfied, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Appendix 1), documentsshowing public process was completed (Appendices 2 through 5), and the Final Adopted Version

ofthe Rule (Appendix 6).

Southern Regional Office

400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 628—6733
Eric ciasseyD7for, Air Quality

Enclosures (2)

cc: Bill Wiley, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, wlo enclosures

Ursula Kramer, Pima County Department ofEnvironmental Quality, w/o enclosures

Don Gabrielson, Pinal County Air Quality Department, w/o enclosures

Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region IX, w/o enclosures

Noah Smith, EPA Region IX, w/o enclosures
§ 205.406 Continuation of certification. ( a ) To continue certification, a certified operation must annually pay the certification fees and submit the following information to the certifying agent: ( 1 ) A summary statement, supported by documentation, detailing any deviations from, changes to, modifications to, or other amendments made to the organic system plan submitted during the previous year;
( 2 ) Any additions or deletions to the previous year's organic system plan, intended to be undertaken in the coming year, detailed pursuant to § 205.201;
( 3 ) Any additions to or deletions from the information required pursuant to § 205.401(b); and
( 4 ) Other information as deemed necessary by the certifying agent to determine compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part.
( b ) The certifying agent must arrange and conduct an on-site inspection, pursuant to § 205.403, of the certified operation at least once per calendar year.
( c ) If the certifying agent has reason to believe, based on the on-site inspection and a review of the information specified in § 205.404, that a certified operation is not complying with the requirements of the Act and the regulations in this part, the certifying agent shall provide a written notification of noncompliance to the operation in accordance with § 205.662.
( d ) If the certifying agent determines that the certified operation is complying with the Act and the regulations in this part and that any of the information specified on the certificate of organic operation has changed, the certifying agent must issue an updated certificate of organic operation pursuant to § 205.404(b).
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 3624, Jan. 19, 2023]
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard . Baltimore MD 21230 MDE 410·537· 3000 . \-800-633-6101 

Mlnm O>Mall~) Shari T, ""ilson 

GO"«lIor Actinll S«mar') 

Anthony G. Bro...." 

l~ut.lWlt Go\"cmor FEB - 5 2007 

Judith Katz. Director 

Air Prot«tion Division (3APOO) 

U.S. EPA 

1650 AKh Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Dear Ms. Katz: 

The purpose ofthislener is 10 submit copies of Stale implemenlation Plan (SIP) Rc\ision 

#06-07 concerning changl'S 10 the transportation conformity ~quirl:menIS in response \0 ~ 

passage of the SAFETEA-LU legislation. changes 10 the general conformil} hOlspOI rule. and the 

addition of Washington County \0 the inleragency conformi!) consultation proco:-ss. 

This SIP Revision indudes amendments to Regulations ,01 - ,05, and ,07. ,09 under 

COMAR 26.11.26 Conformll>', The Notice of Proposed Action for these amendment, was 

published in the ,,\aQ'land Re!l.istcr on January 19. 2007. The action was adopted on 

January 5. 2007 with an cffecti\e date of Januilf)' 29. 2007. 

A public hearing for this submission was held in Baltimore. t>la/)land on 

December l .t. 2006. All required administmthe procedures were followed througholl1thc 

hearing process. Ir~ou have any questions conceming these submissions. please fccl frcc to call 

(}wrge (Tad) S. Abum, Jr .. Dirtttor of the Air and Radiation Management Administration ilt 

(410) 537-3255. 

Acting SecTetaT) 

Enclosures 

cc: 	 Marda Spink. Associate Director. USEPA. Region III 

MaTlin KOISCh. USEPA, Region III 

Diane Fmnks. Program Manager. Air Qualit) Planning. MOE 

Brian Hug. Acting OcpUl} Program t>lanager. Air Qualit~ Planning, ~1DE 

Howard Simons. MOOT 

ITVU.... I-IOO-71J..!2JI 

'""lrlt..lKd., Se...""
§ 227.3 Administration. ( a ) Within the Department, FNS shall act on behalf of the Department in the administration of the Program.
( b ) Within the States, responsibility for administration of the Program shall be in the State agency, except that FNSRO shall administer the Program with respect to nonprofit private schools or institutions in any State where the State agency is prohibited by law from administering the Program in nonprofit private schools or institutions.
Exhibit 11-1
The Navigators Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Computation of per Share Earnings
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents
($ and shares in thousands, except per share data)

|                                                                   |  | Year Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|
|Net income applicable to common stock                              |  | $                      
|Average number of common shares outstanding                        |  |                        
|Net income per shareBasic                                         |  | $                      
|Average number of common shares outstanding                        |  |                        
|Add: Assumed exercise of stock options and vesting of stock grants |  |                        
|                                                                   |  |                        
|Common and common equivalent shares outstanding                    |  |                        
|                                                                   |  |                        
|Net income per shareDiluted                                       |  | $                      

---
2006-0111.

#### State v. Lamarr.

Logan App. No. 8-04-39, 2005-Ohio-6030. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of the court that the appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 7, 2006, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause is dismissed sua sponte.
```
SPEAKERSCONTENTSINSERTS
```

```
Page 1TOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 2PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 3PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 4PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 5PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 6PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 7PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 8PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 9PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 10PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 11PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 12PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 13PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 14PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 15PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 16PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 17PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 18PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 19PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 20PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 21PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 22PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 23PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 24PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 25PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 26PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 27PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 28PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 29PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 30PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 31PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 32PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 33PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 34PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 35PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 36PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 37PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 38PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 39PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 40PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 41PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 42PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 43PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 44PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 45PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 46PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 47PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 48PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 49PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 50PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 51PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 52PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00056-MP-AK

ARTHUR LOUIS PATTERSON,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 462, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of

this Court’s order at Doc. 460. In the previous order, the Court denied Mr. Patterson’s motion to

reduce sentence under the crack cocaine Guidelines amendment. The defendant’s base offense

level remained at 38 even after the amendment because of the amount of drugs attributable to

defendant. Because the amendment does not lower the Guideline range applicable to this

defendant, § 1B1.10(a)(1) does not permit the Court to reduce the original sentence. Thus, the

Court never reaches the issue discussed by Defendant in his motion to reconsider -- whether the

Court can go below the amended Guidelines range in cases where the Court previously went

below the range because of Rule 35(b) or 5K1.1. Here, however, there is no amended

Guidelines range, because the amendment did not lower his range. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion for reconsideration, doc. 462, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00056-MW-GRJ Document 463 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 1