alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.110 Qualified management.

An Applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Agency, that its current or proposed management team is qualified and has the knowledge, experience, and capability in Community Development Finance or Relevant Capital Finance, necessary for investing in the types of Enterprises contemplated by the Act, regulations in this part, and its business plan. In determining whether an Applicant's current or proposed management team has sufficient qualifications, the Agency will consider information provided by the Applicant and third parties concerning the background, capability, education, training and reputation (and any other managerial aspect identified by the USDA in a Federal Register notice) of its general partners, managers, officers, key personnel, and investment committee and governing board members. The Applicant must designate at least one individual as the official responsible for contact with the Agency.

[76 FR 80222, Dec. 23, 2011]
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:20cv393-RH-MJF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SHERDRIA LOWE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv393-RH-MJF

A1 AUTO SPORTS LLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 7. No objections have been filed. 

The report and recommendation correctly concludes that this federal court 

lacks jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because the amount in 

controversy is less than the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. So even if the 

plaintiff was given leave to amend the allegations about the defendant’s 

citizenship—that is, even if complete diversity of citizenship was shown to exist—

the court still would not have diversity jurisdiction. Nor is there any other basis for 

Case 4:20-cv-00393-RH-MJF Document 8 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:20cv393-RH-MJF

federal jurisdiction. This order leaves the plaintiff free to pursue any appropriate 

remedy in state court. 

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is dismissed for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on November 30, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00393-RH-MJF Document 8 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 2
2006-0533.

#### State v. Armstrong.

Montgomery App. No. 19655, 2005-Ohio-432. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Amendment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment Agreement
(this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 2nd day of March 2009, by and between LKQ Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), and Joseph M. Holsten (the “Consultant”). 
 The Company and the Consultant are parties to that certain
Consulting Agreement dated as of January 11, 2008 (the “Consulting Agreement”). The parties desire to amend the Consulting Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein. 
 In consideration of the undertakings and agreements of the respective parties set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 3 of the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

  

	 	3.	Compensation and Benefits During the Term. During the Term, the Company agrees (a) to pay Consultant at the rate of $200,000 annually, and (b) to provide for the
continuation, at the Company’s expense, of substantially the same health benefits in effect for Consultant immediately prior to the commencement of the Term. 

  

	 	2.	General. All other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed as of the day and year specified at the beginning hereof. 
  

			
	LKQ CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Victor M. Casini

	Name:	 	Victor M. Casini
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
	
	CONSULTANT
	
	 /s/ Joseph M. Holsten

	Joseph M. Holsten
```

[House Report 107-735]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-735

======================================================================

 
 WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
                               COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

 October 10 (legislative day, October 9), 2002.--Referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 577]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 577, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of 
Thursday, October 10, 2002, providing for the consideration or 
disposition of a joint resolution making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003.

                                

```
AAM-12-078-E December 12, 2011 Exemption No. 10406 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1246

Mr. Benjamin L. Magro Coastal Helicopters, Inc. 141 Peabody Road Appleton, ME 04862

Dear Mr. Magro:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By submission dated November 8, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Coastal Helicopters, Inc. (Coastal) for an exemption from part 120 to allow Coastal, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Coastal.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—2

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Coastal Helicopters, Inc. an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Coastal, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Coastal are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Coastal part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Seaman, Also Known as D, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 557]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered January 26, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant, waiving his right to appeal, pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of a single-count indictment and two other pending charges. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2V2 to 5 years. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment as counsel on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record, we agree. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                         

<TABLE>
          <S>                                        <C>
          Name of Subsidiary                         State or Other Jurisdiction
                                                     of Incorporation
          -----------------------------------------  ----------------

          O'Brien Energy Services Company            Delaware
          O'Brien Thermal Technologies               Delaware
          O'Brien Parlin Supply Corporation          Delaware
          O'Brien Newark Supply Corporation          Delaware
          NRGG (Newark) Cogeneration, Inc.           Delaware
          NRGG (Parlin) Cogeneration, Inc.           Delaware
          SDN Power, Inc.                            Delaware
          NRGG (Asia), Inc.                          Delaware
          Power Service Company                      Delaware
          O'Brien (Philadelphia) Cogeneration, Inc.  Delaware
          O'Brien Fuels, Inc.                        Delaware
          O'Brien Mobile Power Rental Company        Delaware
          O'Brien Power Equipment, Inc.              Texas
          American Thermotech, Inc.                  Delaware
          American Hydrotherm Corp.                  New York
          Burr Controls, Inc.                        New York
          O.B. Power Plant, Ltd.                     United Kingdom
          Puma Manufacturing Ltd.                    United Kingdom
          Puma Export Finance, Ltd.                  United Kingdom
          Puma Freight Forwarding Ltd.               United Kingdom
          Puma Far East Ltd.                         United Kingdom
          Enercol Energy Systems, Ltd.               United Kingdom
          O'Brien Energy Europe                      United Kingdom
</TABLE>
#### § 502.2 Admission.

Admission to BARC during “off duty” hours shall be restricted to the main arteries and any deviation therefrom by individuals shall be limited to authorized individuals who may be required to sign a register and display identification documents when requested by BARC Security or other authorized individual. “Off duty” hours will be posted at BARC. Admission during “duty” hours when BARC is closed to the public in emergency situations will be limited to authorized individuals who may be required to sign a register and display identification documents when requested by BARC Security or other authorized individual.

[61 FR 51211, Oct. 1, 1996]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:00cr29-SPM/AK

LOTTIE SONJA CALHOUN TIBBITS

a/k/a “Lottie Calhoun,”

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS

Pending before the Court is Defendant Tibbits’ Motion for Wit of Coram

Nobis. Doc. 264. Coram nobis relief is appropriate only in extraordinary

circumstances to correct an error of fundamental character when there is no

other relief available and valid reason for not pursing relief earlier. Alikhani v.

United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). The drug amount issue

Tibbits’ raises could have been raised on direct appeal and in a motion to vacate

under § 2255. Tibbits has not presented a sound reason for her failure to raise

the issue earlier and the issue is not of a fundamental character to warrant coram

nobis relief. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Motion for Writ of Coram Nobis (doc.

Case 5:00-cr-00029-SPM-AK Document 278 Filed 05/05/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

 CASE NO.: 5:00cr29-SPM/AK

264) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:00-cr-00029-SPM-AK Document 278 Filed 05/05/09 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                     Exhibit 23.2


               Consent of Independent Accountants


We  hereby  consent  to the incorporation  by  reference  in  the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-15786, No.  33-25316,
and  No. 33-50784) of NRG Generating (U.S.) Inc. (formerly  known
as  O'Brien  Environmental  Energy, Inc.)  of  our  report  dated
October 7, 1994, appearing in this Form 10-K.




Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 24, 1997

                               44
#### § 3600.4 Authority to act for the Administrator.

In the absence of the Administrator, the following officials are designated to serve as Acting Administrator in the order indicated:

Associate Administrator

Deputy Administrator for Field Operations

Director, Estimates Division

Director, Survey Management Division

Director, Systems and Information Division

Director, Research Division
#### In the Matter of Joseph Gold, an Attorney, Respondent. Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers’ Association and the Bronx County Bar Association, Petitioner.

First Department,

May 22, 1969.

*Angelo T. Cometa (Edward C. Walsh*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Julius A. Itzkowitz*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Second Judicial Department in December, 1950. In this proceeding brought by the Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York County Lawyers’ Association and the Bronx County Bar Association, he is charged with eight specifications of professional misconduct, as hereinafter referred to. The Referee, to whom the matter was referred for the taking of testimony and the rendering of a report, has found that all the charges were duly sustained with the exception that he found Charge No. 6 sustained only in part as hereinafter stated. The petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is in all respects granted and the motion by respondent for an order disaffirming *117the report of the Referee insofar as he sustains the charges and for a dismissal of the charges, is denied.

The charges, as sustained, and the evidence in support thereof, establish (1 to 5) that the respondent was guilty in five instances of gross neglect in connection with the prosecution of personal injury claims with the result that, in four of the cases, actions brought in behalf of his clients were dismissed for lack of prosecution; (6) that covering a period from November, 1962 to September, 1966, he violated rule IV (subd. [4], par. [a]) of the Special Rules Regulating Conduct of Attorneys (22 NYCRR 603.4 [d]) by failing to maintain a proper special bank account and by commingling personal funds in the special account which he maintained; (7) that he was guilty.of conversion of the funds of a client in that, on receiving the amount of the settlement of an accident claim, he deposited the same in his special account and thereafter, prior to remitting to his client, drew checks on the account so that the balance therein was at times less than the portion of the .settlement payable to the client; and (8) that he failed to file closing statements in 15 personal injury cases, covering a period from July 1, 1960 to June 30, 1967, as required by rule IV (subd. [2], par. [a]) of the Special Rules Regulating Conduct of Attorneys (22 NYCRR 603.4 [b]).

The charges, as established, represent serious professional misconduct. Considering the mitigating factors in this particular case, including serious illness in his family, his co-operation with the Co-ordinating Committee and his restitution to clients fo.r their losses, we determine that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. (See *Matter of McLaughlin,*31 A D 2d 58.)

Eager, J. P., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of one year, effective June 23,1969.
§ 4279.244 Appraisals. ( a ) Lenders must obtain appraisals for real estate when the value of the Collateral exceeds $250,000. Each appraisal must be reported in a manner that summarizes all of the information necessary for the intended users to understand the report and contain all information pertinent to the appraiser's opinions and conclusions. ( 1 ) Appraisals must not be more than one year old, and a more recent appraisal may be requested by the Agency in order to reflect more current market conditions. For loan servicing purposes, an appraisal may be updated in lieu of a complete new appraisal when the original appraisal is more than one year old, but less than two years old.
( 2 ) Specialized appraisers will be required to complete appraisals under this section. The Agency may approve a waiver of this requirement only if a specialized appraiser does not exist in a specific industry. The Agency will require documentation that the appraiser has the necessary experience and competency to appraise the property in question.
( 3 ) All real property appraisals associated with Agency guaranteed loan origination and servicing transactions must meet the requirements contained in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989 and the appropriate guidelines contained in Standards 1 and 2 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP) and be performed by a State Certified General Appraiser. Notwithstanding any exemption that may exist for transactions guaranteed by a Federal Government agency, all appraisals obtained by the Lender for origination and servicing must conform to the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluations Guidelines established by the Lender's primary Federal or State regulator.
( 4 ) All appraisals must include consideration of the potential effects from a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products or other environmental hazards on the Market Value of the Collateral. The Lender must complete and submit its technical review of the appraisal. For construction Projects, the Lender must use the “as-completed” Market Value of the real estate to determine value of the real estate property. For all proposals, Lenders must obtain a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM International Standards, which should be provided to the appraiser for completion of the appraisal. For additional guidance and information refer to “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,” published by the American Society of Testing and Materials.
( b ) Chattels must be evaluated in accordance with normal banking practices and generally accepted methods of determining value. Chattel appraisals must reflect the age, condition, and remaining useful life of the equipment. If the appraisal is completed by a State licensed/certified appraiser, the appraisal report must comply with USPAP Standards 7 and 8.
159 So.2d 287

#### Harry E. SARTORI v. James H. HUNTER, dba J. H. Hunter, Contractor.

No. 47049.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: James H. Hunter, dba J. H. Hunter, Contractor, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 158 So. 2d 457.

The application is denied. The judgment complained of is not final.
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 21 Filed 12/02/03 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 21 Filed 12/02/03 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 21 Filed 12/02/03 Page 3 of 3
#### §§ 4287.325-4287.333 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Thomas, Appellant, v. John T. Deegan, as Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 18, 1968, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In view of the pendency of relator’s appeal from the judgment of conviction and from the denial of his *coram nobis*application, there was no reason of practicality or necessity to permit an attack on the judgment of conviction by way of habeas corpus *652(cf. *People ex rel. Keitt*v. *McMann,*18 N Y 2d 257; *People ex rel. Singleton*v. *Deegan,*31 A D 2d 769; *People ex rel. Wynn*v. *Follette,*30 A D 2d 706; *People ex rel. Cruz*v. *Deegan,*30 A D 2d 976). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
#### Noconda Le Grand, Petitioner, v Walter T. Fogg, as Warden of Naponach Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

for writ of habeas corpus, release on bail pending appeal and for relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 denied. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
(October 20, 1980)

#### Jeffrey A. Rogin, Appellant, v Sarah Rogin, Respondent.

Motion by appellant to stay the enforcement of the order of the Supreme Court, Warren County, dated August 1, 1980 and entered in Nassau County on August 14, 1980, pending determination of the appeal from said order. On the court’s own motion, the appeal and the motion are transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department, which has jurisdiction of said appeal. *Ruzzo v Kingston Trust Co.*(9 AD2d 692) is no longer the law (CPLR 511, subd [d]). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.
#### In re PRESTON’S WILL. WELLS, Appellant, v. PRESTON et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

In the matter of the probate of a paper propounded as the last will and testament of Jonathan Preston, deceased, etc., and action by J. Madison Wells, against H. Stephen Preston and others.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied. See 99 N. Y. Supp. 312.