alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 560.214 Expenses of maintaining blocked physical property; liquidation of blocked property. ( a ) Except as otherwise authorized, and notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all expenses incident to the maintenance of physical property blocked pursuant to § 560.211 shall be the responsibility of the owners or operators of such property, which expenses shall not be met from blocked funds.
( b ) Property blocked pursuant to § 560.211 may, in the discretion of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property.
[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:****Final environmental impactstatement for implementation of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)recommendations and related Army actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia [electronicresource]**
 
Public Transmittal Letter (PDF, 58 KB, 1 p.) 
Cover and Section 1 (PDF, 3.9 MB, 85 pp.) 
Section 2 (PDF, 6.9 MB, 26 pp.) 
Section 3 (PDF, 6.5 MB, 14 pp.) 
Section 4-1 through 4-5 (PDF, 9.9 MB, 183 pp.) 
Section 4-6 through 9 (PDF, 8.9 MB, 357 pp.) 
Appendices A and B (PDF, 7.9 MB, 72 pp.) 
Appendix B, Part 2a (PDF, 12.2 MB, 89 pp.) 
Appendix B, Part 2b (PDF, 7.4 MB, 101 pp.) 
Appendix B, Part 3a (PDF, 8.0 MB, 33 pp.) 
Appendix B, Part 3b (PDF, 12.0 MB, 63 pp.) 
Appendix B, Part 4a (PDF, 11.6 MB, 15 pp.) 
Appendix B, Part 4b (PDF, 9.6 MB, 75 pp.) 
Appendix B, Part 4c (PDF, 7.8 MB, 126 pp.) 
Appendices C through E (PDF, 10.5 MB, 193 pp.) 
Appendices F through I (PDF, 2.7 MB, 75 pp.) 
Appendix J, Part 1 (PDF, 9.0 MB, 28 pp.) 
Appendix J, Part 2 (PDF, 10.9 MB, 24 pp.) 
Appendix K, Part 1 (PDF, 10.0 MB, 225 pp.) 
Appendix K, Part 2 (PDF, 10.8 MB, 508 pp.)
 
SuDoc Number:D 103.62:B 29/FINAL
Item Number:0334-A-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000626904
 
September 5, 2019
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Larry Dean HOUSER and Douglas Lee Kessler, Appellees.

No. 78-900.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 17, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

The state contends that the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.

After a hearing, the trial court found the search warrant contained several defects: (1) the residence to be searched was stated as 6815 South Wall Street instead of 6813 South Wall Street which was actually searched; (2) the photographs of the residence were not attached to the warrant as was asserted in the informant’s affidavit; and (3) the statements of the confidential informant were uncorroborated and, therefore, there was no probable cause to justify the issuance of the warrant. The description of the property was recited in the warrant as follows:

> *824ONE STORY CONCRETE BLOCK RE-SIDNECE (sic) BEING WHITE IN COLOR AND HAYING LIGHT BLUE TRIM ON WINDOW LEDGES AND ROOF MOLDING. SAID RESIDENCE HAVING IMITATION BRICK ON LOWER HALF OF WALL FACING EAST. SAID RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED HAVING AN OPEN CARPORT ON SOUTH SIDE OF STRUCTURE, AND SUPPORTED BY WHITE BEAMS. THAT SAID BEAM LOCATED ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID RESIDENCE HAVING NUMERALS 6815, BLACK IN COLOR AND AFFIXED IN A VERTICAL POSITION. ABOVE DESCRIBED RESIDENCE HAS A FOUR FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE SURROUNDING SAID PROPERTY.

> MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED HAVING AN ADDRESS OF 6815 SOUTH WALL STREET, TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING THE FOURTH RESIDENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH WALL STREET, NORTH OF PRESCOTT AVENUE.

It is conceded that the address is incorrect. Nevertheless, we believe that this mistake does not render the search warrant invalid. The description of the residence was sufficient to lead and indeed did lead the officers directly to the house to be searched. *See State v. Gallo,*279 So.2d 71 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). The same reasoning can be applied to the absence of the photographs. In light of the specific description of the residence contained in the warrant, they would be mere surplusage.

In *State v. Wolff,*310 So.2d 729 (Fla.1975) it was held that where the warrant contains information showing reliability of the confidential informant, his testimony standing alone can provide sufficient probable cause to uphold the validity of the search warrant. Since in this case the warrant did contain information which showed reliability of the confidential informant there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
#### Charles E. CADDELL and Margaret Caddell, Appellants, v. Elaine B. STELIGA and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 74-1299.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 28, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1975.

Appeal dismissed.
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2700

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AN ACT

To designate the building located at 8302 FM 327, Elmendorf, Texas, which houses operations of the United

States Postal Service, as the ‘‘Amos F. Longoria Post

Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 2700 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The building located at 8302 FM 327, Elmendorf,

3 Texas, which houses operations of the United States Post4 al Service, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Amos

5 F. Longoria Post Office Building’’, and any reference in

6 a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record

7 of the United States to such building shall be deemed to

8 be a reference to the ‘‘Amos F. Longoria Post Office

9 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### § 587.313 United States.

The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-1356

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Daniel Binion

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: November 6, 2020

Filed: November 12, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

After considering a number of factors, the district court1 decided not to reduce 

Daniel Binion’s 293-month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub. L. 

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa.
-2- 

No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host of 

grounds, we affirm.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United 

States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771–72 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing the standard 

of review and outlining the two-step analysis for motions under the First Step Act). 

The First Step Act did not require the court to reduce Binion’s sentence, even if he 

was eligible. § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”). And the court 

did more than enough by considering the statutory sentencing factors before making 

a decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 727 (8th 

Cir. 2020) (explaining that, in reviewing a First Step Act motion, “a district court 

may, but need not, consider the section 3553 factors”). 

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel 

permission to withdraw.

______________________________
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 1000 1500 2000 1000 18 12 06 00 08/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in each of Centennial Bancorp's
Form S-8 Registration Statement Nos. 33-44701, 33-86650 and 333-32081, and in
Centennial Bancorp's Annual Report on Form 10-K as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1998, of our report dated January 27, 1999, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Centennial Bancorp and subsidiaries as of
and for the year ended December 31, 1998, which is incorporated by reference in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



         /s/ SYMONDS, EVANS & LARSON, P.C.




Portland, Oregon
March 26, 1999
§ 585.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. Any payment of funds or transfer of credit in which a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 585.201 has any interest that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. financial institution must be blocked in an account on the books of that financial institution. A transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. financial institution between blocked accounts in its branches or offices is authorized, provided that no transfer is made from an account within the United States to an account held outside the United States, and further provided that a transfer from a blocked account may be made only to another blocked account held in the same name. Note 1 to § 585.504 .
*See* § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. *See also* § 585.203 concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts.
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks, Releases, & Reports
- Work by Country

HomeBureaus & Offices > Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights...Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

# Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

					Subscribe					

## 				Our Mission			

					INL works to keep Americans safe by countering crime, illegal drugs, and instability abroad.				

Assistant Secretary

 Todd D.  Robinson

							Follow Us:																			TwitterFacebookInstagram

## Assistance to Ukraine

INL has received offers from U.S. law enforcement agencies to donate equipment and other items to assist our partners in Ukraine. There are certain guidelines these donations must follow. Should you be part of a law enforcement agency interested in donating to the Ukrainian State Border Guard Service and/or the National Police of Ukraine, please send inquiries to SLPTrequests@state.gov.

Back to Top
PRELIMINARYAGENDA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCYAND RENEWABLE ENERGY ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FORCONSUMERPRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 PRIORITIZATION Forrestal Building, Room IE-245 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 Wednesday, June 9, 2004

- 9:00 a.m. Purpose ofMeeting: To hear the views ofinterested persons on the proposedprioritization for existing coveredproducts in the appliance standards program; onthe analyses, factors, and process used to reach the proposed priorities; and on any potential new products. The Department will consider the views presented and comments submitted when formulating its approach in the fall Regulatory Agenda. 9:00

- 9: 10 am Welcoming Remarks 9:10

- 9:30 am Agenda Review and Introductions 9:30 -10:00 am Overview ofPriority-Setting Process and Presentation ofDraft Priorities 10:00

- 10:30 am Discussion ofIssues A. Factors in Priority-Setting Process B. Proposed Product Priorities C. New Products to Consider (orDeletions) 10:30

- 10:45 am Break

10:45

- 1:00 am Discussion ofIssues (Continued) Other Issues Next Steps l:OOpm Lunch (ifneeded) ADJOURNMENT
www.gpo.gov

### §731. Definitions

For purposes of this subchapter—

(1) the term “tribe” means the Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas (considered as one tribe in accordance with section 732 of this title);

(2) the term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior or his designated representative;

(3) the term “reservation” means the Alabama and Coushatta Indian Reservation in Polk County, Texas, comprised of—

(A) the lands and other natural resources conveyed to the State of Texas by the Secretary pursuant to the provisions of section 721 of this title;

(B) the lands and other natural resources purchased for and deeded to the Alabama Indians in accordance with an act of the legislature of the State of Texas approved February 3, 1854; and

(C) lands subsequently acquired and held in trust by the Secretary for the benefit of the tribe;

(4) the term “State” means the State of Texas;

(5) the term “constitution and bylaws” means the constitution and bylaws of the tribe which were adopted on June 16, 1971; and

(6) the term “Tribal Council” means the governing body of the tribe under the constitution and bylaws.

(Pub. L. 100–89, title II, §201, Aug. 18, 1987, 101 Stat. 669.)

#### Short Title

Section 1 of Pub. L. 100–89 provided that: “This Act [enacting this subchapter and subchapter LXXVIII (§1300g et seq.) of this chapter and provisions set out below] may be cited as the ‘Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act’.”

#### Regulations

Section 2 of Pub. L. 100–89 provided that: “The Secretary of the Interior or his designated representative may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act [see Short Title note above].”
# Blank

## Post navigation

Argentina
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR REVISION TO THE 2007 STATE STRATEGY SIP SUBMITTAL 

MAY 2009 

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V – 

Criteria for Determining the Completeness 

of Plan Submissions 

Enclosed Notes 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's 

Designee X See letter addressed to Ms. Laura Yoshii from Mr. James N. Goldstene 

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption X See ARB Board Resolution 09-34 

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation X See ARB Board Resolution 09-34 

2.1(d) Copy of : 

a. Attainment Plan 

b: Contingency Measures 

 Not applicable 

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's 

Procedural Requirements X See ARB Board Resolution 09-34 

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 

40 CFR part 51.102 X 

See Notice of Public Hearing published 

March 24, 2009 and Statement of Kurt 

Karperos Regarding Public Notice 

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in 

Accordance with Notice X See ARB Board Resolution 09-34 

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and 

Responses X See 3 submitted public comments 

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant Not applicable. 

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status Not applicable. 

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions Not applicable. 

2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan 

Approval/Implementation Protects 

NAAQS 

 Not applicable. 

2.2(e) Modeling Support Not applicable. 

2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 

2.2(i) Justification Not applicable.
§ 569.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. Any payment of funds or transfer of credit in which a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 569.201 has any interest that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. financial institution must be blocked in an account on the books of that financial institution. A transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. financial institution between blocked accounts in its branches or offices is authorized, provided that no transfer is made from an account within the United States to an account held outside the United States, and further provided that a transfer from a blocked account may be made only to another blocked account held in the same name. Note 1 to § 569.504 :
*See* § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. *See also* § 569.203 concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts.
§ 570.404 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction. ( a ) Any transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and necessary to give effect thereto is also authorized, except: ( 1 ) An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, by or with any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 570.201; or
( 2 ) An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, involving a debit to a blocked account or a transfer of blocked property.
( b ) For example, a license authorizing a person to complete a securities sale involving Company A, whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 570.201, also authorizes other persons to engage in activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to complete the sale, including transactions by the buyer, broker, transfer agents, and banks, provided that such other persons are not themselves persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 570.201.
HomeBureau of Energy ResourcesRemarks & Releases...Clean EDGE Asia: ENR’s Power Sector Program (PSP) Hosts Clean Energy Study Tour for Malaysian Energy Sector Stakeholders

# 									Clean EDGE Asia: ENR’s Power Sector Program (PSP) Hosts Clean Energy Study Tour for Malaysian Energy Sector Stakeholders							

Other Release

June 5, 2023

Senior Malaysian officials visited Arizona and California from May 22-26 to learn from U.S. clean energy experts, including visits to the Sunset Reservoir solar array in CA and a Tesla Megapack battery storage facility in AZ.  PSP partner, the U.S. Energy Association, facilitated meetings with the CA Strategic Growth Council and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, whose members discussed strategies for ensuring an equitable energy transition, community choice energy programs, and tools for de-risking projects.  In meetings with First Solar, Arizona State University’s Laboratory for Energy and Power Solutions, Arizona Public Service (electric utility), and the Arizona Corporation Commission (regulator), discussions focused on connecting large-scale variable renewable energy to the grid.

 

Tags

Bureau of Energy ResourcesEnergyMalaysia

Back to Top
40328.

#### MANGUM v. MILLS et al.

Decided October 2, 1963

Rehearing denied October 23, 1963.

*537
      *Randall Evans, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, Gould B. Hagler,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

No complete, enforceable and binding-contract can be found in the correspondence and surrounding *538circumstances in which it was written. Implicit in the agreement to write off $500 (assuming but not deciding that being “agreeable” to such a writing off is an agreement to do so), is that it would be done in consideration of the payment of the remainder of the judgment. Otherwise there was no consideration for the agreement. It does not appear that the parties considered the election not to file a motion for a rehearing a consideration for the promise to write off the $500. There was no meeting of the minds of the attorneys, who were acting for their clients, as to the manner in which the judgment was to be paid. Ordinarily such payments are made by check to the attorney alone, or to the client alone, in which latter case the attorney could endorse for the client. If there could be any implied agreement in the circumstances as to how the judgment would be paid it would have to be in one of the above methods. The draft tendered was one suitable to eases where claims are settled without being reduced to judgments, in which event the insurance company or the insured has a right to insist on a receipt in full from the judgment creditor of the insured, releasing the insured from all claims arising from the incident giving rise to the cause of action. In this case a judgment was obtained. There was no claim for personal injury so there was no basis for the demand for a receipt and release from the judgment creditor. The attorney for Mr. Mangum was justified in refusing to accept the draft tendered and in demanding cash whether his doing so be considered reasonable or unreasonable. The contention that Mangum is precluded from contending that the write-off was not effected because he precluded the other party from- filing a motion for a rehearing is without merit because after the draft tendered was declined and returned the insurer had ten days in which to pay the judgment in cash and assure the writing off of the punitive damages. This it chose not to do. Hence the present appeal.

The court erred in writing off the punitive damages and in ending the case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Eberhardt and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
- TE Home
- About
- Remarks
- Technology Solutions
- Programs
- Defeat Disinfo
- Resources
- Events
- Contact Us

HomeTechnology Engagement Division...Contact Us – Technology Engagement Division

# 									Contact Us							

Please submit this form to contact the Technology Engagement Team. Privacy Act Notice

              - Name* Mr.Mrs.MissMs.Dr.Prof.Rev.PrefixFirstLast
              - Email* 
              - Subject* 
              - Comment* 
              - CAPTCHA 

Back to Top
#### § 562.309 United States.

The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2660 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2660

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 24, 1996

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Interior for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED TO THE 
              DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE TENSAS RIVER NATIONAL 
              WILDLIFE REFUGE.

    Section 5(1) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the Tensas 
River National Wildlife Refuge'', approved June 28, 1980 (Public Law 
96-285, 94 Stat. 597), as amended by section 2 of Public Law 99-191 (99 
Stat. 1327), is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) beginning October 1, 1995, not to exceed $20,000,000 
        to the Department of the Interior; and''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```