alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Urban Areas Security InitiativeMass Transit Technical Assistance Program [electronic resource].**
 
Report | Agency Contacts | Fact Sheet Letters: NJTRANSIT | PANYNJ | WMATA
 
SuDoc Number:HS 5.303/2:115
Item Number:0520-H-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000626186
 
September 3, 2019
#### § 510.703 Penalty imposition.

If, after considering any written response to the Pre-Penalty Notice and any relevant facts, OFAC determines that there was a violation by the alleged violator named in the Pre-Penalty Notice and that a civil monetary penalty is appropriate, OFAC may issue a Penalty Notice to the violator containing a determination of the violation and the imposition of the monetary penalty. For additional details concerning issuance of a Penalty Notice, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter. The issuance of the Penalty Notice shall constitute final agency action. The violator has the right to seek judicial review of that final agency action in federal district court.
#### In re: HASSEN REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership; Eastland Tower Partnership, a California limited partnership, Debtors Hassen Real Estate Partnership; Eastland Tower Partnership, Appellants, v. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., Appellee.

No. 99-56174.

D.C. No. CV-98-03003-RAP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 2001.

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

Before FERGUSON, TASHIMA and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants entered into a bankruptcy settlement agreement to settle their debt with Appellee, their primary secured creditor. They argue that the settlement agreement could reasonably be read to allow the HMB funds and the June 1996 NOI to be credited against their principal debt. The bankruptcy court rejected this argument, finding that the terms of the settlement agreement were unambiguous, and the district court affirmed. This appeal followed. We affirm.

The stipulated order functions as a contract; as such, its terms must be analyzed under California’s rules of contract interpretation. *See Botejur v. City of Eagle Point,*7 F.3d 152, 156 (9th Cir.1993). In interpreting a contract, California courts look to the context created by the document as a whole, and “will not strain to create an ambiguity where none exists or indulge in tortured constructions to di*538vine some theoretical ambiguity.” *Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court,*65 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1212, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (1997). The disputed provisions of the “Minimum Monthly Payments” paragraph, when interpreted in conjunction with the structure and content of the agreement as a whole, are not susceptible of Appellants’ interpretation.

Even if there were ambiguity in the wording of the stipulated order, moreover, Appellants’ proffered extrinsic evidence does not support their argument. The fact that prior settlement discussions explicitly applied the HMB funds and the June 1996 NOI against the outstanding principal balance does not indicate that the stipulated order implied such a result. To the contrary, the inclusion of such a term in earlier drafts and its absence in the final draft indicate that it was excluded intentionally.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A175
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CSA Income
Fund IV Limited Partnership's Statement of Financial Position as of June 30,
1998 and Statement of Operations for the six months then ended and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         563,267
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,920,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      61,698,042
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,249,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,932,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,554,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,932,496
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,392,668
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,916,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             832,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,519,878
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,519,878
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,519,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.97
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant maintains an unclassified Statement of Financial Position.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 391.0 Scope of regulations.

These regulations apply to the waiver of late charges on claims due the Bureau of the Fiscal Service as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717(h). They are consistent with the Federal Claims Collection Standards on interest, administrative costs, and penalties prescribed jointly by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Justice and set forth in 4 CFR 102.13. The term “claim” as used in this part refers to an amount of money or property that has been determined to be owed to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service from any person, organization, or entity, except another Federal agency. The term “late charges” as used in this part includes interest, administrative costs, and penalties. When applying the following regulations, a distinction shall be drawn between an adjustment and a waiver. An adjustment is an account correction under any circumstances where the Bureau records a claim or accrues late charges to which it is not legally entitled. An adjustment may be made without the promulgation of regulations. A waiver applies whenever the Bureau accrues late charges it is entitled to assess and later relinquishes that right. Two examples of an adjustment are: (a) Where the underlying claim is without merit, and (b) where the debtor is not notified of the claim as required by 31 U.S.C. 3717. The latter includes being misinformed as to the amount of the charges or the time of their commencement.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WAYNE DEBLAKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2099

[March 18, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas J. Coleman, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 94-10523CF10A, 94-11290CF10A and 94-

13222CF10B.

Wayne Deblaker, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# ~'El(.Oyd. 

# c* eo,,-k.,+S +AA-2o I0-0Qsc.f

With whom Qll/sitle t/le FAA has Ihis proposal been discussed (Le. ATA J R.4A, 

### ALPA, etc.)? NOTE: TIlts item should be completed prior to submission oftlte AD Proposal Worksheet. 

### Orr: ulIi 

### zatiOll HawkcrBeechcraft Person Contacted Quentin Coon Reaction
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Albania (22-228) – Memorandum of Understanding on Import Restrictions

# 									Albania (22-228) – Memorandum of Understanding on Import Restrictions							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

February 28, 2022

Cultural Exchanges, Property and Cooperation: Import Restrictions

Signed at Washington August 23, 2021; entered into force February 28, 2022.
Download Agreement						 [3 MB]

Tags

AlbaniaCultural ObjectsCultural PropertiesTreaties

Back to Top
HomeDSS Press Releases...Baltimore County Serial Fraudster Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison and Ordered to Pay $4.2 Million in Restitution

# 									Baltimore County Serial Fraudster Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison and Ordered to Pay $4.2 Million in Restitution							

Department of Justice Release

February 1, 2024

For Immediate Release – February 1, 2024

Click here to read more about this

 

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyDSS ReleasesFraudMarylandUnited States

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 355.8 How can I get a replacement fiscal agency check? The payor Federal Reserve Bank will issue a replacement fiscal agency check if: ( a ) You submit written notice:
( b ) The check is unpaid;
( c ) We determine that recovery of the original check is unlikely; and
( d ) The payee and endorsee, if any, of the check execute the required indemnification agreement.
40270.

#### FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al. v. BISHOP.

Hall, Judge.

In this case an employer and insurer assign error on a judgment of the superior court remanding a claim to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation for a hearing on the merits, after the board had granted a motion to dismiss the claim on the ground it was barred by the statute of limitation. *Held:*

The filing of a workmen’s compensation claim within one year *423after the accident, as required by *Code*§ 114-305, is jurisdictional ; but if fraud practiced by the employer or his insurance carrier prevents the employee filing his claim the statute of limitation will be tolled, provided the employee acts promptly upon discovery of the fraud. *Indemnity Ins. Co. v.*O’Neal, 104 Ga. App. 305, 306 (121 SE2d 689). Fraud which will relieve the bar of the statute of limitation must be such as debars or deters the plaintiff from his action. That a plaintiff fails to sue on account of a mere uncertain and indefinite understanding, based on no consideration, would not be such fraud as would relieve the bar of the statute. *Printup v. Alexander & Wright,*69 Ga. 553, 556. Accord, *Sutton v. Dye,*60 Ga. 449; *Marler v. Simmons,*81 Ga. 611, 613 (8 SE 190); *Crawford v. Crawford,*134 Ga. 114, 123 (67 SE 673, 28 LRA(NS) 353, 19 AC 932); *Frost v. Arnaud,*144 Ga. 26, 30 (85 SE 1028); *Brinsfield v. Robbins,*183 Ga. 258 (188 SE 7); *Denson v. Denson,*214 Ga. 8 (102 SE2d 605); *Carnes v. Bank of Jonesboro,*58 Ga. App. 193, 196 (198 SE 338), affirmed 187 Ga. 795 (2 SE2d 495, 130 AER 1).

Decided September 20, 1963

Rehearing denied October 4, 1963.

In the present case the evidence showed that the claimant’s accident occurred on September 15, 1960; that the insurer’s representative stated to the claimant’s attorney early in April 1961 that the insurer took the position that the injury was not covered by workmen’s compensation, but they did not want a claim filed and if it could be settled reasonably they would pay rather than have a claim filed; that the claimant returned to work in August but was not then certain whether he had ■ any permanent disability; that the attorney did not again contact the insurer concerning settlement until October 1961, a month after the one-year limitation had expired. A request for hearing was filed with the board on December 12, 1961, and the claimant’s attorney stated at the hearing that except for the representation by the insurer he would have filed a claim in April. The granting of the employer and insurer’s motion to dismiss the claim, on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitation, was authorized; and, the trial court erred in remanding the case to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation for a hearing on the merits.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

*424*Smith, Field, Bingel, Martin & Carr, Bichard D. Carr, Willis-ton C. White,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Marson G. Dunaway, Jr.,*contra.
Exhibit 32.1

                          CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emclaire Financial Corp. (the
Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here (the Report), I, David L.
Cox, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,  the  consolidated  financial  condition  and
               result of operations of the Corporation.



/s/  David L. Cox
-----------------

David L. Cox
Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer


August 10, 2007
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Affirming Our Enduring Support for the People of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Dayton Peace Accords

# 									Affirming Our Enduring Support for the People of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Dayton Peace Accords							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

November 3, 2022

The United States welcomes the UN Security Council’s unanimous reauthorization of the mandate for the European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s (EUFOR) Operation ALTHEA.  Rooted in the Dayton Peace Accords, EUFOR’s Operation ALTHEA remains critical to maintaining the stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).  We thank the EU for their continued contributions to and leadership of EUFOR ALTHEA.

The United States congratulates the citizens of BiH for exercising their rights during October 2 general elections, and encourages newly elected leaders to form responsive, accountable governments at the state and entity levels as soon as possible.  The citizens of BiH deserve institutions that will work to consolidate multi-ethnic democracy, strengthen democratic institutions, counter corruption, and provide economic opportunity for all people.

The United States fully supports High Representative Christian Schmidt and his ability to exercise all necessary authorities, including the Bonn Powers, until the 5+2 Agenda is complete and BIH is irreversibly on course for European integration.  We fully support the High Representative’s efforts to address longstanding power sharing problems and counter any anti-Dayton acts.  The High Representative and his Office merit the full support of the international community in this task.

Tags

Bosnia and HerzegovinaBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsEuropean UnionOffice of the SpokespersonPeace Process

Back to Top
------------~~~~~~-----------------------, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

1

: ?\PEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

.... WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RErt=t\/ED 

SEP 2 4 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Michael P. Huerta, ACTING 

ADMINISTRATOR, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Case No. 2011NM030039 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0875 

Complainant, Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

v. 

MOUNTAIN AVIATION, INC. 

Hearing Date: November 26,2012 

Hearing Location: Denver, Colorado 

Respondent. 

Respondent's Answer to Complaint 

Respondent Mountain Aviation, by and through undersigned counsel, responds to the 

Administrator's Complaint as follows: 

1. Respondent admits the allegations in Section I of the Complaint. 

2. Respondent admits the allegations in Section II, paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4 ofthe 

Complaint. 

3. Respondent denies the allegations in Section II, paragraph 5, 6 and 7 ofthe 

Complaint. 

4. Respondent denies the allegations in Section III, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the 

Complaint. 

Affirmative Defenses 

1. As set out more fully in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss For Insufficiency, the 

' Respondent's check airman did satisfactorily complete a proficiency or 

competency check by an aircrew designated examiner employed by the company 

1 
in compliance with 14 C.P.R.§ 135.339(a)(2) within the required time period, and 

therefore the Respondent did not violate 14 C.P.R.§§ 135.63(a)(4)(vi), 135.95(b), 

and 135.339(a)(2) for allowing a check airman to administer checks to other pilots 

when the check airman had allegedly not received a flight check required by 14 

C.P.R. § 135.339(a)(2). 

Date_q_; ... ~eptember 21, 20 12 ,.. .... ···· .· ' 

/ ~~-------

KentS. Jackson, Esq. 

Jackson & Wade, L.L.C. 

21628 Midland Dr. 

Shawnee, KS 66218 

Tel: 913.338.1700 

Fax: 913.338.1755 

2 
-. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served via Federal Express, postage prepaid, an original and 

one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-- Suite 2W1 000 

600 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

And, further, that I have this date served via Federal Express, postage prepaid, a copy of the 

foregoing Answer addressed to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Mr. Kyle E. Lomazow 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel- ANM-7 

Northwest Mountain Region 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Dated: September 21,2012 

'Kent S. Jackson, Esq. 

Jackson & Wade, L.L.C. 

21628 Midland Dr. 

Shawnee, KS 66218 

Tel: 913.338.1700 

Fax: 913.338.1755 

3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Bonneville Power Administration

# AGENCY:

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

# SUMMARY:

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has decided to offer BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement for interconnection of up to 200 megawatts of power into the Federal Columbia River Transmission System. The power would be generated by the Golden Hills Wind Project (Wind Project) in Sherman County, Oregon. To interconnect the Wind Project, BPA will string a jumper line at an existing transmission tower outside Klondike Schoolhouse Substation and connect to BPA's Biglow Canyon—Klondike Schoolhouse No. 2 230-kilovolt line. BPA will also purchase part of Portland General Electric's Biglow Canyon Substation, as well as about 1 acre of land next to Biglow Canyon Substation for the expansion of the substation to accommodate new equipment, including a new transmission tower. This new tower will then be connected to an existing transmission tower outside the substation fence. This decision to interconnect the Wind Project is consistent with and tiered to BPA's Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995), and the Business Plan Record of Decision (BP ROD, August 1995).

# ADDRESSES:

                        Copies of this tiered ROD and the Business Plan EIS may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. The RODs and EIS are also available on our Web site,                         *http://www.efw.bpa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Gene Lynard, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; fax number 503-230-5699; or e-mail                         *gplynard@bpa.gov.*

Issued in Portland, Oregon, on August 13, 2009.

Stephen J. Wright,

Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9-20303 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### § 28.410 Comparable facilities.

A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.