alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 200.411 Adjustment of previously negotiated indirect (F&A) cost rates containing unallowable costs. ( a ) Negotiated indirect (F&A) cost rates based on a proposal later found to have included costs that: ( 1 ) Are unallowable as specified by Federal statutes, regulations or the terms and conditions of a Federal award; or
( 2 ) Are unallowable because they are not allocable to the Federal award(s), must be adjusted, or a refund must be made, in accordance with the requirements of this section. These adjustments or refunds are designed to correct the proposals used to establish the rates and do not constitute a reopening of the rate negotiation. The adjustments or refunds will be made regardless of the type of rate negotiated (predetermined, final, fixed, or provisional).
( b ) For rates covering a future fiscal year of the non-Federal entity, the unallowable costs will be removed from the indirect (F&A) cost pools and the rates appropriately adjusted.
( c ) For rates covering a past period, the Federal share of the unallowable costs will be computed for each year involved and a cash refund (including interest chargeable in accordance with applicable regulations) will be made to the Federal Government. If cash refunds are made for past periods covered by provisional or fixed rates, appropriate adjustments will be made when the rates are finalized to avoid duplicate recovery of the unallowable costs by the Federal Government.
( d ) For rates covering the current period, either a rate adjustment or a refund, as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, must be required by the cognizant agency for indirect costs. The choice of method must be at the discretion of the cognizant agency for indirect costs, based on its judgment as to which method would be most practical.
( e ) The amount or proportion of unallowable costs included in each year's rate will be assumed to be the same as the amount or proportion of unallowable costs included in the base year proposal used to establish the rate.
Exhibit 10.21


 





COLONIAL DOWNS


10515 Colonial Downs
Parkway   New Kent, Virginia 23124


(804) 966-7223   Fax (804) 966-1565


www.colonialdowns.com


 


May 11, 2006


 


Mr. Frank Petramalo, Jr., Esq.


Executive Director/General Counsel


Virginia Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc.


38-C Garrett Street


Warrenton, VA 20186


 


Dear Frank:


 


The agreement between Colonial Downs (“Colonial”) and the Virginia
Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc. (the “VHBPA”) dated
January 1, 2005 (the “Agreement”) sets forth in Section 8E
requirements for additional referenda in the Central-Southside Virginia Region.
Colonial and the VHBPA both agree that additional referenda in the
Central-Southside Virginia Region for the purpose of opening additional satellite
wagering facilities in this region is not the optimal use of their collective
resources at this time. The VHBPA further acknowledges that by running six
referendums in 2003 and 2004, Colonial met prior contractual requirements to
run three referendums in the Central Southside Virginia Region and actually ran
two referendums that it was not required to in areas outside the Central
Southside Virginia Region.


 


Colonial and the VHBPA both believe the greatest potential for handle
growth lies in account wagering and that account wagering is the best way to
penetrate the Northern Virginia market. Colonial has developed a business plan
to expand account wagering to internet cafes, country clubs and bars and
restaurants with sports themes. Colonial is also developing the touch screen
technology to facilitate this expansion. Therefore, in recognition of a mutual
shift in emphasis to account wagering as a means to handle and purse account
growth, Colonial and the VHBPA agree to replace the first sentence of Section 8E
of the Agreement with the following:


 


“Colonial Downs shall conduct three referenda during the period from
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 in the Central-Southside
Virginia Region as set forth in Exhibit D hereto (the “Central Southside
Virginia region”); provided however, upon thoroughbred handle (live plus SWF)
equaling or exceeding $200,000,000, Colonial Downs’ obligations to conduct
additional referenda in the Central-Southside Virginia Region shall
automatically terminate.”


 


Sincerely,


 


	
  /s/ Ian M. Stewart

  
	
  Ian M. Stewart, President

  



 


 


Making Virginia Horse Racing
History


 


 


Acknowledged and accepted


 


Virginia Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc.


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Althea D. Richards

  
	
   

  	
  Name

  
	
   

  	
  Title
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the WFRBSCommercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C12 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

National CooperativeBank, N.A. (as successor to NCB, FSB), as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as Co-opSpecial Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, PentalphaSurveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services,Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, as ServicingFunction Participant, and Prudential Asset Resources, Inc., as PrimaryServicer.

 

 

 

Dated: March 21, 2018

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
§ 1128.405 Content of FMS Article IV. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must specify the changes in budget and program plans for which a recipient is required to request DoD Component prior approval and the procedures for submitting those requests.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include as FMS Article IV the § wording appendix D to this part provides, with any revisions to the wording that are authorized by §§ 1128.410 through 1128.430.
#### § 215.4 Production of contracts and documents.

Whenever the Administrator determines that certain foreign crude oil supply information is necessary to assist in the formulation of energy policy or to carry out any other function of the Administrator, he may require the production by any person of any agreement or document relating to foreign oil supply arrangements or reports related thereto. Such material shall be provided pursuant to the conditions prescribed by the Administrator at the time of such order or subsequently. As used in this section, the term “agreement” includes proposed or draft agreements, and agreements in which the parties have tentatively concurred but have not yet signed, between or among persons and a host country.
#### SAUSALITO PHARMACY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Travelers Insurance Co., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-4198.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 1982.

Decided May 10, 1982.

Rehearing Denied June 21, 1982.

Jane E. Lovell, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant; Richard J. Archer, Archer, Rosenak & Hanson, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.

*48John Hurley, Robert A. Lewis, Craig McAtee, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., Jeffrey P. Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendantsappellees; Martin J. Schnitzer, Memel, Jacobs, Pierno & Gersh, Los Angeles, Cal., Richard J. Kilmartin, Knight, Boland & Riordan, San Francisco, Cal., John J. Swenson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., Robert Charles Friese, Shartsis, Friese & Ginsburg, San Francisco, Cal., John H. Brinsley, Kathryn A. Young, Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Los Angeles, Cal., Rochelle Alpert, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Cal., Patricia J. Doran, Hassard, Bonnington, Rogers & Huber, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.

Before HAYNSWORTH *, Senior Circuit Judge, and CHOY and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Sitting by Designation.

PER CURIAM:

In the district court, summary judgment went against Sausalito and other pharmacies complaining of prepaid prescription plans of health care insurers and administrators. The defendants had entered into contractual arrangements with participating pharmacies under which each participating pharmacy would provide prescription drugs at stipulated prices, which were alleged to be generally less than current charges of the pharmacies to uninsured customers. The claim was that such plans violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S. C.A. § 1, and the corresponding provision of the California Cartwright Act.

We agree with the district court that no viable antitrust claim was stated and affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion. *Sausalito Pharmacy Inc. v. Blue Shield of California,*1981-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) H 68,885 (N.D.Cal., March 16, 1981). *See also Medical Arts Pharmacy of Stamford, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut,*518 F.Supp. 1100 (D.Conn.1981), *aff’d,*675 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1982).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             BUSINESS RESOURCE GROUP

                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31,
                                                              -------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1996                1995                 1994
                                                               ------               ------               -----
<S>                                                             <C>                  <C>                 <C>
     FULLY DILUTED

      Net income ...............................               $1,854
                                                               ======
      Pro forma net income .....................                                    $  999               $1,426
                                                                                    ======               ======

      Weighted average common shares
         outstanding............................                4,844                3,662               3,085
      Common equivalent shares:
         Stock options .........................                   42                   --                  58
         Supplemental shares (1) ...............                   --                  172                 263
                                                               ------               ------               -----

      Total common stock and common
         stock equivalents .....................                4,886                3,834               3,406
                                                               ======               ======               =====
      Net income per common share ..............               $  .38
                                                               ======
      Pro forma net income
         per common share ......................                                    $  .26               $ .42
                                                                                    ======               =====
</TABLE>

(1) Represents the approximate number of shares that would have to have been
sold to fund the distribution of undistributed S Corporation earnings. See Note
2 to Financial Statements.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50645

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUGO DANIEL CHACON-DELEON, 

also known as Julio Cesar Estrada, 

also known as Hugo Chacon DeLeonrraga,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 96-CR-276-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hugo Daniel Chacon-Deleon argues that his sentence for

illegal reentry following deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b) violates principles of due process because the

indictment did not allege his prior felony conviction as an

element of the offense. This argument is precluded by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998).
No. 

-2-

AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 31990Y0704(04) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31990Y0704(04)

**Commission communication on the method of application of Article 9 (3) (a) to regional aid **

*
Official Journal C 163 , 04/07/1990 P. 0006 - 0006 *

Commission communication on the method of application of Article 92 (3) (a) to regional aid

(90/C 163/05)

Change in application of method

In a previous communication (1) the Commission has already described its method for the application of Article 92 (3) (a) to national regional aid. The basic geographical unit used in the analysis is the (NUTS) level III region. However, for the purposes of determining eligibility as an Article 92 (3) (a) region, reference is made to the situation of the majority of level III regions in the larger, level II region. The reasons for this approach are explained under point I (3) of the communication.

The Commission has decided to maintain the level III region as the appropriate geographical unit for aid assessment purposes. However, for determining eligibility under Article 92 (3) (a), reference will now be made to the situation of the level II region as a whole in which the level III region is located. Furthermore, when regions are assessed by using the per capita GDP/PPS indicator, the corresponding index will be averaged over a minimum period of three years based on the last three years, where possible.

(1) OJ No C 212, 12. 8. 1988, p. 2.
H. Res. 1000 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 17, 2018. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Cloud. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: 

Mr. Cloud. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
steam_record - Re: Request for Extension: Tenaska Ferndale Cogeneration Station (ID: 06008) 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Wilton, Benjamin J." <BWilton@TENASKA.com>

Date: 7/13/2010 6:25 AM

Subject: Re: Request for Extension: Tenaska Ferndale Cogeneration Station (ID: 06008)

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C06C9D... 8/26/2011
steam_record - Re: Request for Extension: Rio Nogales Power Project (ID: 05210) 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

-----"Wilton, Benjamin J." <BWilton@TENASKA.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Wilton, Benjamin J." <BWilton@TENASKA.com> 

Date: 07/09/2010 05:20PM 

cc: "Wilton, Benjamin J." <BWilton@TENASKA.com> 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Wilton, Benjamin J." <BWilton@TENASKA.com>

Date: 7/13/2010 6:26 AM

Subject: Re: Request for Extension: Rio Nogales Power Project (ID: 05210)

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C0705DO... 8/26/2011
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1127 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Move Over Law Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2018 

Mr. BIGGS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Move Over 

Law Day. 

Whereas the House of Representatives wishes to recognize 

tow truck operators (as defined by the Federal Highway 

Workers Association Manual of Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices) as private sector responders; 

Whereas due to the increasingly high rate of distracted drivers on the roadway, the number of towing operators lost 

each year in the performance of their duties has tragically risen to an average of 60; 

Whereas nationally in 2017 the towing industry lost 46 towers, of which it is aware, in roadside collisions; 

Whereas every State has a ‘‘move over’’ law, which has correlated directly to a safer environment along our Nation’s 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1127 IH 

roadsides for towers, law enforcement, first responders, 

and stranded citizens; 

Whereas these laws generally require motorists to move at 

least one lane over when there is an emergency or rescue 

activity taking place on the shoulder or side of the roadway; or, if unable to do so safely, to alternatively slow 

down and pass the scene with caution; and 

Whereas providing the towing industry and law enforcement 

an enhanced opportunity to inform the motoring public 

about these laws is critical to the public safety: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of a National 

3 Move Over Law Day; 

4 (2) urges the National Towing Foundation, as 

5 well as State and regional industry organizations, to 

6 spread awareness and promote the existence of, and 

7 adherence to, State move over laws; and 

8 (3) urges the National Towing Foundation, and 

9 similar State and regional organizations, to further 

10 educate the public on the dangers and loss of life if 

11 the provisions and requirements of State move over 

12 laws are not faithfully observed. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARCHELLE WORKMAN,

Appellant,

v.

RAIN BOWLAND,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00137

- CV

Appeal from

County Court

of Jack Co unty, Texas

(TC # CV1996 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is indigent, no order regarding costs

is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 4 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
#### State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Thomas Lampo, Sr., Appellant, v Baltz Concrete Construction, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 203]

*778In a subrogation action to recover insurance benefits paid to the plaintiffs insured, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated February 17, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the plaintiffs contention that the no-fault provisions of the Insurance Law *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [a], [b]; § 5103 [a]) do not bar it from seeking recovery of benefits it paid to its insured for “extended economic loss” pursuant to an “additional personal injury protection” endorsement *(Allstate Ins. Co. v Stein,*1 NY3d 416, 417 [2004]; *see Allstate Ins. Co. v Mazzola,*175 F3d 255 [2d Cir 1999]). However, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiffs subrogor unsuccessfully sought to recover damages for his extended economic loss from them in a prior action, which culminated in a jury verdict in their favor. An insurance company which has paid additional personal injury protection benefits for extended economic loss has a traditional equitable right of subrogation, and thus acquires only the rights that its subrogor had, with no enlargement or diminution *(see Allstate Ins. Co. v Stein, supra).*Since the plaintiffs subrogor unsuccessfully sought to recover damages for extended economic loss in a prior action, the jury verdict in that action is entitled to preclusive effect on the issue of the plaintiffs entitlement to recoup the benefits it paid to its subrogor for extended economic loss. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Co vello, JJ., concur.