alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Theodore B. Eden, Petitioner, v Board of Regents of the University of State of New York et al., Respondents.

Proceeding "pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education which suspended petitioner’s license to practice podiatry for a period of three months and imposed a fine of $1,000. Petitioner’s contention that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offense and shocking to one’s sense of fairness is without merit *(Matter of Yasmer v Ambach,*78 AD2d 752; *Matter of Foreman v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y.,*75 AD2d 953). Petitioner’s argument that the charge committee was forced to vote charges by a member of the Education Department’s legal staff is without merit. We have examined petitioner’s other contentions and find them unpersuasive. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
§ 301.52-2 Authorization for the Deputy Administrator to list regulated areas and suppressive or generally infested areas. ( a ) The Deputy Administrator will list as a regulated area each State or portion of a State in which evidence of a reproducing population of pink bollworm is present, or in which there is reason to believe that pink bollworm is present, or which it is deemed necessary to regulate because of their proximity to infestation or their inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from infested localities. The Deputy Administrator may divide any regulated area into a suppressive area and a generally infested area in accordance with the definitions of these terms in § 301.52-1. The Deputy Administrator will publish a list of all regulated areas, including the suppressive and generally infested areas therein, at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/cotton-pests/cotton-pests .* The list will include the date that the list was last updated. Lists of all regulated areas, including the suppressive and generally infested areas therein, may also be obtained by request from any local office of PPQ; local offices are listed in telephone directories and on the internet at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/sphd .* After a change is made to the list of regulated areas, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public that the change has occurred and describing the change to the regulated areas. Less than an entire State will be designated as a regulated area only if the Deputy Administrator determines that: ( 1 ) The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by this subpart on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and
( 2 ) The designation of less than an entire State as a regulated area will be adequate to prevent the artificial interstate spread of pink bollworm.
( b ) [Reserved]
[87 FR 80007, Dec. 29, 2022]
§ 3550.202 Past due accounts. An account is past due if the scheduled payment is not received by the due date, or as authorized by State law. ( a ) *Late fee.* A late fee will be assessed if the full scheduled payment is not received by the 15th day after the due date.
( b ) *Liquidation* — ( 1 ) *For borrowers with monthly payments.* The account may be accelerated without further servicing when at least 3 scheduled payments are past due or an amount equal to at least 2 scheduled payments is past due for at least 3 consecutive months. In such cases RHS may pursue voluntary liquidation and foreclosure.
( 2 ) *For borrowers with annual payments.* The account may be accelerated without further servicing when at least 3 ⁄ 12 of 1 scheduled payment has not been received by its due date. In such cases, RHS may pursue voluntary liquidation and foreclosure.
( 3 ) *Subsidy recapture.* Acceleration under this section will take into account any subsidy recapture due under § 3550.162.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 77 FR 3379, Jan. 24, 2012]
Exhibit 10.7


ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH, INC.


1998 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN


Amendment


Section 19 of the Albany Molecular Research, Inc.
1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended, is hereby amended by deleting
the last sentence of said section in its entirety and substituting the
following in lieu thereof:


“Subject
to such approval by the stockholders and to the requirement that no Stock may
be issued hereunder prior to such approval, Stock Options and other Awards may
be granted hereunder on and after the adoption of this Plan by the Board,
provided that no grants of Stock Options and other Awards may be made hereunder
after August 7, 2008.”


	
  DATE APPROVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

  	
  February 5, 2004
#### § 3430.15 Stakeholder input.

Section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2)) requires the Secretary to solicit and consider input on each program RFA from persons who conduct agricultural research, education, and extension for use in formulating future RFAs for competitive programs. NIFA will provide instructions for submission of stakeholder input in the RFA. NIFA will consider any comments received within the specified timeframe in the development of the future RFAs for the program.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 08

- 00011

- CV No. 10

- 08

- 00012

- CV

AHF

- ARBORS AT HUNTSVILLE I, LLC , AND AHF

- ARBORS AT HUNTSVILLE II, LLC Appellant s

v.

WALKER COUNTY APPRAI SAL DISTRICT , Appellee

From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No s . 0522992 and 0522994

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant s ha ve filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss these a ppeal s. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). It states that the parties have entered into a settlement of the claims at

issue and request s that costs be assessed aga inst the party incurring them.
Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed with
each party to pay the costs in this behalf expended as they have been incurred

.AHF

- Arbors v. Walker County Appraisal District Page 2 REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Motion granted; appeal dismissed Opini on delivered and filed March 21 , 2013 [CV06]
§ 4280.56 Submission of reports and audits. ( a ) In addition to any reports and audits required by 2 CFR part 200 and subpart F as adopted by USDA in 2 CFR part 400, the Intermediary must submit the following monitoring reports to Rural Development: ( 1 ) *Loan.* The Intermediary must submit Form RD 4280-1 “Survey of Recipients of Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program” to Rural Development on an annual basis until it no longer owes money to USDA under the REDLG Program.
( 2 ) *Grant (Revolving Loan Fund).* The Intermediary must submit the Form RD 4280-1 to Rural Development on an annual basis until all projects financed with Rural Development Grant proceeds have been repaid or are otherwise retired, whichever occurs last. Thereafter, on a triennial basis until the fund is terminated, the Intermediary will submit to Rural Development the Form RD 4280-1, reporting on the activity of all loans made from the Revolving Loan Fund.
( b ) If the Intermediary does not have an existing loan with RUS, the Intermediary will submit a copy of its annual audit to Rural Development within 90 days of its completion. All REDL audits must be conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and REDG audits in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA in 2 CFR part 400.
( c ) Rural Development may require Ultimate Recipients that receive loans financed with Grant funds provided under the REDG Program to submit annual audits to comply with Federal audit regulations. In accordance with 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA in 2 CFR part 400, Ultimate Recipients that are nonprofit entities, or a State or local government, may be required to submit an audit subject to the threshold established in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by in 2 CFR part 400.
[72 FR 29843, May 30, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 76015, Dec. 19, 2014]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CALVIN DUMAS CIVIL ACTION 

VERSUS NO. 20-369

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL. SECTION “J”(2)

ORDER

The Court, after considering the complaint, the record, the applicable law, and 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 6), and finding that 

as of this date no party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, hereby approves the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 4), is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant matter is hereby 

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Florida.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of April, 2020.

 __________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 244 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 244

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
             hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY 
              COMMISSION HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT.

    Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 1651, the 
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the project, and 
after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the 
Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time period 
during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of 
the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods from the date of the 
expiration of the extension originally issued by the Commission.

            Passed the Senate July 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 244

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
             hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Estes, 7:20cv137

Hacker, 7:20cv131

Keefer, 7:20cv104

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

EXHIBITS ORDER NO. 1

This Order addresses a portion of the parties’ exhibit objections, as discussed 

at the pretrial conference on March 17, 2021. The Court’s rulings are set forth in the 

attached Exhibit 1. 

SO ORDERED, on this 18th day of March, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00137-MCR-GRJ Document 90 Filed 03/18/21 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3555.4 Mediation and appeals.

Whenever Rural Development makes a decision that will adversely affect a participant, the participant may proceed with alternative dispute resolution including mediation and a USDA National Appeals Division hearing in accordance with 7 CFR parts 1 and 11. The participant also may request an informal review of the adverse decision made by Rural Development. Except when the adverse decision applies to a loss claim, the applicant or borrower and the lender may participate in the appeal process. Adverse decisions made by the lender cannot be appealed unless concurrence by Rural Development was required by this subpart and obtained by the lender.
161 So.2d 282

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dion Tyrone DIAMOND.

No. 47186.

March 17, 1964.

In re: Dion Tyrone Diamond applying-for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs refused. The application forhabeas corpus ttnder our original jurisdiction is denied since relator does not contend' that he is being illegally confined. The-application for other remedial writs is-denied since we find no error of law in the-ruling complained of or that the trial judge-has abused his discretion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,491
<SECURITIES>                                     7,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,435
<INVENTORY>                                      1,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,263
<PP&E>                                          14,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,418
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              108
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,607
<SALES>                                         16,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,589
<CGS>                                            4,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    507
<INCOME-TAX>                                       173
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:99CR22 LAC

DERRICK STEWART

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 22, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 12/18/08 Doc.# 102

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on12/22/08 Doc.# 103

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 29th day of

January, 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The defendant was held accountable for 5.4 kilograms of cocaine base at

sentencing which resulted in a base offense level of 38. Since the Drug Quantity

Table at §2D1.1 assigns a base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of

cocaine base, the defendant’s base offense level, total offense level and

guideline imprisonment range are unchanged. Therefore, the defendant is not

eligible for any relief pursuant to Amendments 706, 711 and 715. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:99-cr-00022-LC-MD Document 104 Filed 01/29/09 Page 1 of 1
§ 400.451 General. ( a ) FCIC has implemented a system of administrative remedies in its efforts to ensure program compliance and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse within the Federal crop insurance program. Such remedies include civil fines and disqualifications under the authority of section 515(h) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1515(h)); government-wide suspension and debarment under the authority of 48 CFR part 9, 48 CFR part 409, and 2 CFR parts 180 and 417; and civil fines and assessments under the authority of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812).
( b ) The provisions of this subpart apply to all participants in the Federal crop insurance program, including but not limited to producers, agents, loss adjusters, approved insurance providers and their employees or contractors, as well as any other persons who may provide information to a program participant and meet the elements for imposition of one or more administrative remedies contained in this subpart.
( c ) Any remedial action taken pursuant to this subpart is in addition to any other actions specifically provided in applicable crop insurance policies, contracts, reinsurance agreements, or other applicable statutes and regulations.
( d ) This rule is applicable to any violation occurring on and after January 20, 2009.
( e ) The purpose of the remedial actions authorized in this subpart are for the protection of the public interest from potential harm from persons who have abused the Federal crop insurance program, maintaining program integrity, and fostering public confidence in the program.
[73 FR 76887, Dec. 18, 2008, as amended at 83 FR 25361, June 1, 2018]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Minichello, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 29, 1968, which held her ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The decision is supported by substantial evidence that the employer was not liable for contributions with respect to appellant. Subdivision 1 of section 560 of the Labor Law provides that an employer shall become liable for contributions with respect to persons employed *582in personal or domestic service in private homes only if he has paid to them remuneration in cash of $500 or more in any calendar quarter. Claimant was employed as a home companion from July 12, 1967 through December 1, 1967 at $39.50 per week, and received $459.70 in the third quarter of 1967, and worked nine weeks and received $345.25 in the fourth quarter. Since the employer never paid $500 or more in any calendar quarter, she never became liable for contributions under section 560 of the Labor Law. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.
* 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60219 Conference Calendar

OSEAS MOISES ALVAREZ, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A 70 661 937

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Oseas Moises Alvarez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and for a withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The petition for review is
DENIED.No. -2-
§ 4285.82 Use of funds; changes. ( a ) *Delegation of fiscal responsibility.* The cooperator may not, in whole or in part, delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of cooperative agreement funds.
( b ) *Change in project plans.* ( 1 ) The permissible changes by the cooperator, principal investigator(s), or other key project personnel in the approved cooperative agreement shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the cooperator and/or the principal investigator(s) is uncertain whether a particular change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Assistant Administrator for Cooperative Services for a final determination.
( 2 ) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by cooperator and approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator for Cooperative Services, or authorized delegate, prior to effecting such changes. Normally, no requests for such changes outside the scope of the original approved project will be approved.
( 3 ) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or realignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the cooperator and approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator for Cooperative Services, or authorized delegate, prior to effecting such changes.
( 4 ) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the cooperator and approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator for Cooperative Services, or authorized delegate, prior to effecting such changes, except as may be allowed in the terms and conditions of a cooperative agreement award.
( c ) *Changes in project period.* The project period determined pursuant to § 4285.81(b) of this subpart may be extended by the Assistant Administrator for Cooperative Services without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the Assistant Administrator for Cooperative Services determines may be necessary to complete, or fulfill the purposes of, an approved project. Any extension, when combined with the originally approved or amended project period, shall not exceed four (4) years and shall be further conditioned upon prior request by the cooperator and approval in writing by the Assistant Administrator for Cooperative Services, or authorized delegate, except as may be allowed in the terms and conditions of a cooperative agreement award.
( d ) *Changes in approved budget.* The terms and conditions of a cooperative agreement will prescribe circumstances under which written Agency approval must be requested and obtained prior to instituting changes in an approved budget.
PUBLIC LAW 108–320—OCT. 5, 2004 118 STAT. 1213

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3389:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–419 (Comm. on Science).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Mar. 3, considered and passed House.

Sept. 23, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–320

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to permit Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to be made to nonprofit organizations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

Section 17(c)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation

Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a(c)(1)) is amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(F) Nonprofit organizations.’’.

Approved October 5, 2004.

Oct. 5, 2004

[H.R. 3389]