alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 760.106 Equitable relief. ( a ) The Secretary may provide equitable relief on a case-by-case basis for the purchase requirement to eligible participants that: ( 1 ) Are otherwise ineligible or provide evidence, satisfactory to FSA, that the failure to meet the requirements of § 760.104 for one or more eligible crops on the farm was unintentional and not because of any fault of the participant, as determined by the Secretary, or
( 2 ) Failed to meet the requirements of § 760.104 due to the enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill after the: ( i ) Applicable sales closing date for a policy or plan of insurance in accordance with the FCIA (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) or
( ii ) Application closing date for NAP.
( b ) Equitable relief will not be granted to participants in instances of: ( 1 ) A scheme or device that had the effect or intent of defeating the purposes of a program of insurance, NAP, or any other program administered under this part or elsewhere in this title,
( 2 ) An intentional decision to not meet the purchase or buy-in requirements,
( 3 ) Producers against whom sanctions have been imposed by RMA or FSA prohibiting the purchase of coverage or prohibiting the receipt of payments otherwise payable under this part,
( 4 ) Violations of highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions of 7 CFR part 12,
( 5 ) Producers who are ineligible under any provisions of law, including regulations, relating to controlled substances (see for example 7 CFR 718.6), or
( 6 ) A producer's debarment by a federal agency from receiving any federal government payment if such debarment included payments of the type involved in this matter.
( c ) In general, no relief that is discretionary will be allowed except upon a finding by the Deputy Administrator or the Deputy Administrator's designee that the person seeking the relief acted in good faith as determined in accordance with such rules and procedures as may be set by the Deputy Administrator.
[74 FR 31571, July 2, 2009, as amended at 76 FR 54075, Aug. 31, 2011]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Booker Williams, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on June 23, 1978, unanimously dismissed. By reason of resentence of appellant, that judgment was vacated and a new judgment substituted therefor, rendered January 11, 1980, from which there is no appeal pending. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2865 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2865

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2006

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin.

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

SECTION 1. PERMETHRIN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.10.80       (3-                Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Phenoxyphenyl)met                                                  31/2009
                         hyl 3-(2,2-
                         dichloroethenyl)-
                         2,2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate
                         (Permethrin) (CAS
                         No. 52645-53-1)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2916.20.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0621. JAMES GLENN WILDER v. THE STATE.

This appeal was docketed in thisCourt on December 4, 2015. Appellant’s brief

was due to be filed within 20 days of docketing. See Court of Appeals Rule 23(a). 

On January 26, 2016, when Appellant had failed to file a brief, this Court ordered him

to file a brief within ten (10) days. He has yet to file his brief or any request for an

extension.

This appeal therefore is DISMISSED pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 23(a). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/01/2016

March 01, 2016
###### Editorial Note on Part 762

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 762 appear at 72 FR 63297, Nov. 8, 2007.

#### §§ 762.111-762.119 [Reserved]
#### § 65.240 Retailer.

*Retailer* means any person subject to be licensed as a retailer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a(b)).

[78 FR 31385, May 24, 2013]
§ 760.1807 Miscellaneous provisions. ( a ) All persons with a financial interest in a legal entity receiving payments under this subpart are jointly and severally liable for any refund, including related charges, that is determined to be due to FSA for any reason.
( b ) In the event that any application under this subpart resulted from erroneous information or a miscalculation, the payment will be recalculated and any excess refunded to FSA with interest to be calculated from the date of the disbursement.
( c ) Any payment to any participant under this subpart will be made without regard to questions of title under State law, and without regard to any claim or lien against the commodity, or proceeds, in favor of the owner or any other creditor except agencies of the U.S. Government. The regulations governing offsets and withholdings in part 3 of this chapter apply to payments made under this subpart.
( d ) Any participant entitled to any payment may assign any payment(s) in accordance with regulations governing the assignment of payments in part 3 of this chapter.
( e ) The regulations in parts 11 and 780 of this title apply to determinations under this subpart.
AFS-13-408-E

July 5, 2013

Mr. Vernon Ray Stork

251 Pebblestone Drive

Huntsville, AL 35806

Dear Mr. Stork:

This is in response to your letter, dated May 31, 2013 (public docket No. FAA-2006-26103)

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from 

§ 91.109(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow you to conduct flight instruction and simulated instrument flights to meet recent 

instrument experience requirements in certain Beechcraft airplanes equipped with a 

functioning throwover control wheel in place of functioning dual controls.

On August 19, 2011, the FAA issued a revision to14 CFR § 91.109 as part of it “Pilots in 

Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification 

Rules” final rule (76 FR 54095; August 31, 2011), which became effective October 31, 2011. 

A copy of the rule is enclosed.

Since the relief you requested is permitted in the revised § 91.109, an exemption is no longer 

required. Therefore we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
###### Editorial Note on Part 782

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 782 appear at 61 FR 32643, June 25, 1996.

#### § 782.23 Failure to file end-use certificates or consumption and resale reports.

Failure by importers, end users, exporters, and subsequent buyers to file form FSA-750, End-Use Certificate for Wheat, and form FSA-751, Wheat Consumption and Resale Report, as applicable, and retain or maintain related copies and records shall constitute noncompliance for the purposes of § 782.19.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

327 

KA 10-01050 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

SIR RAVEN R., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG,

JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an adjudication of the Supreme Court, Erie County

(Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered March 2, 2010. Defendant was

adjudicated a youthful offender upon his plea of guilty to robbery in

the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the adjudication so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). 

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
§ 769.155 Loan limitations. ( a ) For each application period: ( 1 ) Loans to intermediaries will not exceed $5,000,000 to any intermediary;
( 2 ) Loans to ultimate recipients will not exceed the loan limit for a Direct Farm Ownership loan as specified in § 761.8(a)(1)(i) of this chapter to any ultimate recipient.
( b ) Loans to the ultimate recipient may not be used: ( 1 ) For any land improvement, development purpose, acquisition or repair of buildings, acquisition of personal property, payment of operating costs, payment of finders' fees, or similar costs;
( 2 ) For any purpose that will contribute to excessive erosion of highly erodible land or for the conversion of wetlands to produce an agricultural commodity as specified in 7 CFR part 12; or
( 3 ) To resolve heirs' property issues on property that will not be used, or has traditionally not been used, for production agricultural purposes.
( c ) The HPRP loan amount may not exceed the current market value of the land determined by an appraisal that meets the requirements specified in § 761.7(b)(1) of this chapter; and
( d ) Intermediaries who receive HPRP funding are not permitted to charge the ultimate recipients for mediation services provided through grants received under the Agency's State Agriculture Mediation Program (part 785 of this chapter).
---

Exhibit 99.3








CONSENT OF AUTHOR





TO:
Ur-Energy Inc.


British Columbia Securities Commission


Alberta Securities Commission


Saskatchewan Securities Commission


Manitoba Securities Commission


Ontario Securities Commission


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





AND TO:
Toronto Stock Exchange


NYSE Amex





RE:
Ur-Energy Inc. (“Ur-Energy”) - Consent under National Instrument 43-101








Reference is made to the technical report (the “Technical Report”) entitled “NI 43-101 Preliminary Assessment for the Lost Creek Project Sweetwater County, Wyoming,”(April 2008) which the undersigned has prepared for Ur-Energy.





I have reviewed and approved the summary of and extract from the Technical Report prepared to be filed with the Annual Report on Form 20-F (Annual Information Form) of Ur-Energy (fiscal year ended December 31, 2009) and confirm that the summary and extract fairly and accurately represents the information in the Technical Report.  I hereby consent to the written disclosure of my name, and reference to and incorporation by reference of, the Technical Report in the public filing of the Annual Report on Form 20-F (Annual Information Form) of Ur-Energy with the regulatory authorities referred to above.  I further consent to the incorporation by reference into Registration Statement No. 333-153098 on Form S-8 of the Technical Report.





I certify that I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 20-F (Annual Information Form) being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from the Technical Report or that are within my knowledge as a result of the services performed by me in connection with the Technical Report.








Dated:  March 10, 2010








/s/ Douglas K. Maxwell


Douglas K. Maxwell, P.E.


Lyntek Incorporated
§ 755.5 Proof of eligible reimbursement costs incurred. ( a ) To be eligible for reimbursement based on FSA fixed or set rates as specified in § 755.7, the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section must be met at the time of the application. To be eligible for reimbursement of actual costs, the requirements of paragraph (d) must also be met, within 30 days after the end of the applicable fiscal year.
( b ) Eligible verifiable records to support eligible reimbursement costs include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Invoices;
( 2 ) Account statements;
( 3 ) Contractual Agreements; or
( 4 ) Bill of Lading.
( c ) Verifiable records must show: ( 1 ) Name of producer(s);
( 2 ) Commodity and unit of measure;
( 3 ) Type of input(s) associated with transportation costs;
( 4 ) Date(s) of service;
( 5 ) Name of person or entity providing the service, as applicable, and;
( 6 ) Retail sales receipts with verifiable records handwritten as applicable.
( d ) To be eligible for reimbursement based on actual costs, the producer must provide supporting documentation that documents the specific costs incurred for transportation of each commodity or input. Such documentation must: ( 1 ) Show transportation costs for each specific commodity or input, and
( 2 ) Show the units of measure for each commodity or input, such that FSA can determine the transportation cost per unit.
207.103 Agency-head responsibilities.       (d)(i) Prepare written acquisition plans for—          (A) Acquisitions for development, as defined in FAR 35.001, when the total cost of all contracts for the acquisition program is estimated at $10 million or more;          (B) Acquisitions for production or services when the total cost of all contracts for the acquisition program is estimated at $50 million or more for all years or $25 million or more for any fiscal year; and          (C) Any other acquisition considered appropriate by the department or agency.          (ii) Written plans are not required in acquisitions for a final buy out or one-time buy. The terms "final buy out" and "one-time buy" refer to a single contract that covers all known present and future requirements. This exception does not apply to a multiyear contract or a contract with options or phases.          (e) Prepare written acquisition plans for acquisition programs meeting the thresholds of paragraphs (d)(i)(A) and (B) of this section on a program basis. Other acquisition plans may be written on either a program or an individual contract basis.          (g) The program manager, or other official responsible for the program, has overall responsibility for acquisition planning.          (h) For procurement of conventional ammunition, as defined in DoDD 5160.65, Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA), the SMCA will review the acquisition plan to determine if it is consistent with retaining national technology and industrial base capabilities in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(3) and section 806 of Pub. L. 105-261. The department or agency—          (i) Shall submit the acquisition plan to the address in PGI                 207.103             (h); and          (ii) Shall not proceed with the procurement until the SMCA provides written concurrence with the acquisition plan. In the case of a non-concurrence, the SMCA will resolve issues with the Army Office of the Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 207.1 - ACQUISITION PLANS
#### Hannora Lytle *vs.*Nathan W. Prescott *et al.*

Submitted on briefs April 4, 1894.

Affirmed April 20, 1894.

No. 8658.

Assignments of error.

Assignments of error *held*bad.

Appeal by defendants, Nathan W. Prescott and John H. Doran, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of St. Paul, *John Twohy, Jr.,*J., made September 8, 1893, denying their motion for a new trial.

John Olson bought of Nathan Ford Music Co., August 19, 1891, a music box in rosewood case for $80 and gave his note for that sum and signed a contract that the instrument should remain the property of the vendors until the note should be paid. He after-wards paid $42 on the note. On December 17, 1892, Olson borrowed of the plaintiff, Hannora Lytle, $22 and gave her a mortgage on the music box to secure repayment. On April 4, 1.893, Olson pawned the music box to the defendants for $13.55. They kept a pawnbroker’s shop. On April 9, 1893, plaintiff demanded the property, and commenced this action April 11, to recover possession by virtue of her mortgage. A jury was waived. The court made findings of fact and ordered judgment for plaintiff that she recover the property and in case she could not obtain possession then for $22 and interest the value of her mortgage interest with costs. Defendants moved for a new trial but were denied and they appealed. In this court they assigned errors as follows:

First. The finding of the court is not justified by the evidence and is contrary to law. Second. There is no evidence in this case *130to establish the damages as found by the court. Third. Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for new trial.

*B. F. Latta,*for appellants.

*John W. Best,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Of the three assignments of error the first and third are bad under the rules, — the first, because it does not show whether it is taken to the court’s findings of fact or its conclusion of law, and, if to the findings of fact, it does not show to which of them (there being several); the third, because it assigns as error the denial of the motion for a new trial, without specifying to which of the several points made by the motion the assignment applies. There is no merit in the second assignment of error. There was evidence to sustain the finding referred to in it. Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 688.)
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
TEODORO GOMEZ

- TORRES , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 23

- 0414 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201301013 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe , Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Mohave County Attorney ’ s Office , Kingman By Matthew J. Smith Counsel for Respondent

Teodoro Gomez

- Torres , Florence Petitioner FILED 06-25-2024STATE v. GOMEZ

- TORRES Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton , Judge Michael S. Catlett , and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Teodoro Gomez

- Torres seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s fourth petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 5 77, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitione r has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established a n abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
52.222-30 Construction Wage Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (None or Separately Specified Method).       As prescribed in 22.407(e), insert the following clause:          Construction Wage Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (None or Separately Specified Method) (Aug 2018)                                       (a) 						            The wage determination issued under the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute by the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, that is effective for an option to extend the term of the contract, will apply to that option period.                                          (b) 						            The Contracting Officer will make no adjustment in contract price, other than provided for elsewhere in this contract, to cover any increases or decreases in wages and benefits as a result of-                                                         (1) 								                Incorporation of the Department of Labor’s wage determination applicable at the exercise of the option to extend the term of the contract;                                                            (2) 								                Incorporation of a wage determination otherwise applied to the contract by operation of law; or                                                            (3) 								                An increase in wages and benefits resulting from any other requirement applicable to workers subject to the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute.                                                                    (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
§ 772.7 Leasing minor program loan security. ( a ) *Eligibility.* The Agency may consent to the borrower leasing all or a portion of security property for Minor Program loans to a third party when: ( 1 ) Leasing is the only feasible way to continue to operate the enterprise and is a customary practice;
( 2 ) The lease will not interfere with the purpose for which the loan was made;
( 3 ) The borrower retains ultimate responsibility for the operation, maintenance and management of the facility or service for its continued availability and use at reasonable rates and terms;
( 4 ) The lease prohibits amendments to the lease or subleasing arrangements without prior written approval from the Agency;
( 5 ) The lease terms provide that the Agency is a lienholder on the subject property and, as such, the lease is subordinate to the rights and claims of the Agency as lienholder; and
( 6 ) The lease is for less than 3 years and does not constitute a lease/purchase arrangement, unless the transfer and assumption provisions of this subpart are met.
( b ) *Application.* The borrower must submit a written request for Agency consent to lease the property.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1956.52-1956.53 [Reserved]
§ 795.15 Determining whether agreement is a share lease or a cash lease. ( a ) *Cash lease.* If a rental agreement contains provisions for a guaranteed minimum rental with respect to the amount of rent to be paid to the landlord by a tenant, such agreement shall be considered to be a cash rental agreement. In addition, the rental agreement must be customary and reasonable for the area.
( b ) *Share lease.* If a rental agreement contains provisions that require the payment of rent on the basis of the amount of the crop produced or the proceeds derived from the crop, such agreement shall be considered to be a share rental agreement. In addition, the rental agreement must be customary and reasonable for the area.
[51 FR 8454, Mar. 11, 1986]