alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3560.309 Advancement (loan) of funds to a RRH project by the owner, member of the organization, or agent of the owner. ( a ) Prior written approval by the Servicing Office is required. Such advances may be authorized when justified by unusual short-term conditions. When conditions are not short-term in nature, a servicing plan may be developed and advances may be approved in accordance with the provisions set out in § 3560.453 of this part. Justification will be based on the following: ( 1 ) A review of the documented circumstances and the project operating budget before any funds are advanced (loaned). The financial position of the project must not be jeopardized.
( 2 ) Funds are not immediately available from any of the following sources: ( i ) Reserve funds;
( ii ) Initial operating capital; and
( iii ) An imminent rent increase.
( b ) The funds will be applied to ordinary project operating and maintenance expenses.
( c ) Interest may be charged or paid on the loan from project income; however, interest must be reasonable. The proposal may be denied if Rural Development financing can be provided to resolve the problem in a more cost-effective manner.
( d ) No lien in connection with the loan will be filed against the property securing the Rural Development loan or against project income. The advance may show as an unsecured project liability on financial statements prepared for year-end reports until such time as it is authorized to be repaid.
( e ) The payback of the advance (loan) may be permitted by the Servicing Official provided the terms and conditions were mutually agreed to by the borrower and Rural Development at the time of the advance and the financial position of the project will not be jeopardized. Payback should only be permitted on the advance when the Rural Development debt is current and the reserve requirements are being maintained at the authorized levels.
#### Aida I. Montalvo, as Administratrix of the Estate of James E. Centeno, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Joseph Mackenessie et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendants Mackenessie and Mirable, doing business as M&M Country Club, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 21, 1979, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to serve and file an amended complaint increasing the *ad damnum*clause. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to renew upon proper papers. Plaintiffs’ moving affidavit made the single unsupported statement that, "plaintiff’s *[sic]*attorneys have only recently received notification with respect to [the] amount of insurance coverage provided to defendants.” Although this motion was based only on a re-evaluation of past injuries, with respect to the personal injury cause of action, this bald statement of a fact totally unrelated to the injuries of the decedent is inadequate to justify granting the amendment. On the cause of action for wrongful death, an additional reason exists for reversal. The original complaint alleges loss of the decedent’s comfort and society. This is not a *844permissible basis for recovery (see *Grant v Guidotti,*49 NY2d 622). Cohalan, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.1630 Regulation of Brokers and Dealers and disclosure to purchasers of Leverage or Trust Certificates. ( a ) *Brokers and Dealers.* Each broker, dealer, and Pool or Trust assembler approved by the Agency pursuant to these regulations shall either be regulated by a Federal financial regulatory agency, or be a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), and shall be in good standing in respect to compliance with the financial, ethical, and reporting requirements of such body. It also shall be in good standing with the Agency as determined by the SBA official with delegated authority to made this determination (*see* paragraph (c) of this section) and shall provide a fidelity bond or insurance in such amount as the Agency may require.
( b ) *Suspension and/or termination of Broker or Dealer.* The Agency shall exclude from the sale and all other dealings in Debentures or TCs any broker or dealer: ( 1 ) If such broker's or dealer's authority to engage in the securities business has been revoked or suspended by a supervisory agency. When such authority has been suspended, the Agency will suspend such broker or dealer for the duration of such suspension by the supervisory agency.
( 2 ) If such broker or dealer has been indicted or otherwise formally charged with a misdemeanor or felony bearing on its fitness, such broker or dealer may be suspended while the charge is pending. Upon conviction, participation may be terminated.
( 3 ) If such broker or dealer has suffered an adverse final civil judgment holding that such broker or dealer has committed a breach of trust or violation of law or regulation protecting the integrity of business transactions or relationships, participation in the market for Debentures or TCs may be terminated.
( c ) *Termination/suspension proceedings.* A broker's or dealer's participation in the market for Debentures or TCs will be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 11. The Agency may, for any of the reasons stated in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, suspend the privilege of any broker or dealer to participate in this market. The Agency shall give written notice at least ten business days prior to the effective date of such suspension. Such notice shall inform the broker or dealer of the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to 7 CFR part 11.
7.304 [Reserved]

Parent topic: Subpart 7.3 - Contractor Versus Government Performance
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before TANG , STEPHENS , and FOIL , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Diego F. DAVILA

- NARVAEZ Hospital Corpsman First Class (E

- 6 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 201900165
Decided: 2 2 April 2020 Appeal from the United States Nav y - Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge : Stephen Reyes Sentence adjudged 22 March 2019 by a general court

- martial convened at U.S. Naval Forces Japan, Yokosuka, Japan , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1 , confinement for 36 months , total forfeitures , and a dishonorable discharge

. 1 For Appellant: Lieutenant Daniel E. Rosinski, JAGC, USN. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

1 In accordance with the pretrial agreement , the convening aut hority suspended confinement in excess of 18 months.United States v. Davila

- N arvaez , NMCC A No. 201900165 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as b inding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ PER CURIAM: After careful consideration of the record, submitt ed without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
§ 460.3 Eligibility and qualifying causes of loss. ( a ) To be eligible for a payment under this subpart, the participant must be a person that is eligible to receive Federal benefits and has purchased a crop insurance policy for the insured crop from an AIP. ( 1 ) Participants will be eligible to receive a payment in this subpart only if they were prevented from planting an insured crop due to a qualifying cause of loss, as further specified in this subpart.
( 2 ) A person is not eligible to receive benefits in this subpart if at any time that person is determined to be ineligible for crop insurance.
( b ) Insured crops that are eligible for a payment under this subpart are those crops for which the final planting date for the 2019 crop year crop insurance policy is in the 2019 calendar year, as specified by the Administrator. ( 1 ) For insured crops with more than one final planting date in the county, only those types or practices with a final planting date in the 2019 calendar year are eligible for payment under this subpart.
( 2 ) Participants who are in violation of Highly Erodible Land or Wetlands Conservation (16 U.S.C. 3811-12, 3821) for Federal crop insurance are not eligible for payment under this subpart.
( c ) A prevented planting payment will only be considered a qualifying prevented planting payment if the participant is prevented from planting the insured crop due to one of the following causes of loss: ( 1 ) Excess precipitation;
( 2 ) Flood;
( 3 ) Cold wet weather;
( 4 ) Storm surge;
( 5 ) Tornado;
( 6 ) Volcanic activity; and
( 7 ) Tropical depression, hurricane, or cyclone.
( d ) A prevented planting payment received for failure to plant due to any cause not included in paragraph (c) of this section is not considered a qualifying prevented planting payment for the purpose of this subpart.
118 STAT. 2254 PUBLIC LAW 108–400—OCT. 30, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4827:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–400

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge

Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 to rename the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area as the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MCINNIS CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.

(a) PURPOSE.—The Colorado Canyons National Conservation

Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C.

460mmm et seq.) is amended in section 2(b) by striking ‘‘Colorado

Canyons’’ and inserting ‘‘McInnis Canyons’’.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 3 of such Act is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Colorado’’ and inserting

‘‘McInnis’’; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Colorado’’ and inserting

‘‘McInnis’’.

(c) COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.—Section 4 of such Act is amended—

(1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘COLORADO’’ and inserting

‘‘MCINNIS’’; and

(2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Colorado Canyons’’ and

inserting ‘‘McInnis Canyons’’.

(d) ADVISORY COUNCIL.—Section 8(a) of such Act is amended

by striking ‘‘Colorado Canyons’’ and inserting ‘‘McInnis Canyons’’.

(e) SHORT TITLE.—Section 1 of such Act is amended by striking

‘‘Colorado’’ and inserting ‘‘McInnis’’.

(f) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the ‘‘Colorado

Canyons National Conservation Area’’ shall be deemed to be a

reference to the ‘‘McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area’’.

(g) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amendments made

by this section take effect on January 1, 2005.

Approved October 30, 2004.

16 USC 460mmm

note.

16 USC 460mmm

note.

16 USC 460mmm

note.

16 USC

460mmm–6.

16 USC

460mmm–2.

16 USC

460mmm–1.

16 USC

460mmm.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 4827]
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 23, 2016 521620

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of DANIEL O'BRIEN, Appellant, v THE CAREY CENTER FOR GLOBAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GOOD et al., Respondents. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: June 2, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________ Martin Harding & Mazzotti, LLP, Albany (Crystle A. Watts of counsel), for appellant. Stockton Barker & Mead, LLP, Troy (John B. Paniccia of counsel), for The Carey Center for Global Good and another, respondents.

__________ Lynch, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed January 22, 2015, which, among other things, denied claimant's request to amend his claim to include postconcussion syndrome. Following a work-related accident wherein claimant slipped and fell on ice, claimant established a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his head, back and neck. Based upon-2- 521620

claimant's protracted recovery and continued medical treatment, claimant sought to amend his claim to include, among other things, a concussion and postconcussion syndrome. By decision dated March 13, 2014, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) credited the medical reports and testimony of Patrick Hughes, a neurologist, finding, as is relevant to this appeal, no postconcussion syndrome. The WCLJ amended the claim to include a mild concussion and found that claimant exhibits a moderate 50% partial disability, but denied any further relief. Upon review of the record, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision and this appeal by claimant ensued. We must reverse. "The resolution of conflicting medical evidence lies within the province of the Board, but the opinions relied upon must themselves constitute substantial evidence to support the Board's decision" (Matter of Dingman v Town of Lake Luzerne, 94 AD3d 1287, 1287-1288 [2012] [citations omitted]). Here, the Board relied on medical reports and testimony of Hughes wherein he opined that claimant did not suffer from postconcussion syndrome. Nevertheless, Hughes submitted an addendum report that states that claimant "sustained a mild head injury followed by a post concussion syndrome causally related to his work injury." As there is an inherent contradiction in the medical reports submitted by Hughes, they cannot constitute substantial evidence to support the Board's decision (see id.; Matter of Waldheim v Hudson Sheet Metal, Inc., 78 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2010]). McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.-3- 521620

ORDERED that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
§ 5001.108 Eligible REAP—Energy Efficient Equipment and Systems (EEE) projects and requirements. For a REAP EEE project to be eligible for a loan guarantee under this part, it must meet the criteria specified in § 5001.102(a) through (c) and in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section and be for a borrower that is an agricultural producer eligible to submit an application for the project in accordance with § 5001.126. If the borrower plans to use taxable bonds as debt instruments the provision § 5001.105(b)(19) must be met. ( a ) The project must be for the purchase and installation of energy efficient equipment or systems for agricultural production or processing that exceed the following standards: ( 1 ) Energy efficiency building codes, if available;
( 2 ) Federal or State energy efficiency standards, if available; and
( 3 ) Other energy efficiency standards determined appropriate by the Secretary. ( i ) If no codes or standards described in such subparagraph apply to the energy efficient equipment or system to be purchased or installed pursuant to such subparagraph, the Secretary shall require, to the maximum extent practicable, such equipment or systems to meet the same efficiency measurements as the most efficient available equipment or system in the market; and
( ii ) The Secretary shall not provide such a loan guarantee for the purchase or installation of any energy efficient equipment or system unless more than one type of such equipment or system is available in the market.
( b ) The EEE project must be for commercially available technology.
( c ) The EEE project must have technical merit as certified by the vendor/installer. An application that does not include said certification will be deemed incomplete and therefore is not eligible to compete for funding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                    THIS  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS  SUMMARY   FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
                    EXTRACTED FROM ECLIPSE  CORPORATION  UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET
                    AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
                    FOR THE THREE  MONTHS  THEN  ENDED AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
                    ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         56,609
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  93,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,080
<INVENTORY>                                    1,002,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,183,933
<PP&E>                                         144,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,746,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,213,242
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       37,578
<OTHER-SE>                                     364,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,746,281
<SALES>                                        384,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               384,396
<CGS>                                          353,025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  555,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               208,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             51,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (428,968)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (428,968)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (428,968)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4

JUNE 21 2019 LETTER FROM TEIN TO MIGUEL

Kimberly Grippa v. Ronald Rubin

Case No. 4:20cv457-MW/MAF

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-4 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 2
3059 Grand Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 

www.teinmalone.com (305) 442-1101

 TEIN MALONE PLLC

 LAWYERS

June 21, 2019

Chief Inspector General Miranda Miguel

400 S. Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

RE: Ron Rubin Investigation & Request to Investigate CFO Jimmy Patronis

Dear General Miguel:

We respectfully request that you assume jurisdiction over the pending investigation of 

OFR Commissioner Ron Rubin and open an investigation into heavily corroborated

evidence of misuse of public office by CFO Jimmy Patronis and his inner circle, in 

violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 836.05 (threats and extortion); 838.016 (unlawful 

compensation or reward for official behavior) and 839.26 (misuse of confidential 

information). 

The grounds for our request are described in our letter to Governor DeSantis and a

lawsuit (both hyperlinked and attached). The letter and lawsuit detail improper, 

unethical and perhaps unlawful conduct on the part of Mr. Patronis and his enterprise, 

including the orchestration and publication of allegations against Rubin in retaliation 

for his refusal to join in illegal conduct. The lawsuit attaches and hyperlinks to 

supporting documentary evidence, including public records, email and text messages. 

Please contact me if you would like copies of our evidence or to interview Mr. Rubin. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s

Michael Tein, Esq.

TEIN MALONE, PLLC

Counsel to Commissioner Ron Rubin

c: Governor Ron DeSantis

Attorney General Pam Moody

Inspector General Bradley Perry

Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis

K. Grippa

DFT 119

12/22/21 MB

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-4 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:96-cr-00020-MW-GRJ   Document 438   Filed 04/20/05   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:96-cr-00020-MW-GRJ   Document 438   Filed 04/20/05   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:96-cr-00020-MW-GRJ   Document 438   Filed 04/20/05   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:96-cr-00020-MW-GRJ   Document 438   Filed 04/20/05   Page 4 of 4
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:92cr4034-WS

THOMAS DEWAYNE WHITE, 4:09cv394-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 94)

docketed November 10, 2009. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

motion to vacate sentence be summarily dismissed as untimely. The defendant has

filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 94) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The defendant's motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(doc. 91) is hereby summarily DISMISSED as untimely.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:92cr4034-WS

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:09cv394-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December , 2009.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11.107 Solicitation provision.       (a)                    						             Insert the provision at 52.211-6, Brand Name or Equal, when brand name or equal purchase descriptions are included in a solicitation.                                          (b)                    						             Insert the provision at 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, in solicitations that use Government-unique standards when the agency uses the transaction-based reporting method to report its use of voluntary consensus standards to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (see OMB Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities"). Use of the provision is optional for agencies that report their use of voluntary consensus standards to the National Institute of Standards and Technology using the categorical reporting method. Agencies that manage their specifications on a contract-by-contract basis use the transaction-based method of reporting. Agencies that manage their specifications centrally use the categorical method of reporting. Agency regulations regarding specification management describe which method is used.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 11.1 - Selecting and Developing Requirements Documents