alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Baseline coastal oblique aerial photographs collected from Navarre Beach, Florida, to Breton Island, Louisiana, September 18–19, 2015

By: Karen L. M. Morgan**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1008

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

First posted August 1, 2016

**For additional information, contact:**
Director, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 600 4th Street South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 502–8000http://coastal.er.usgs.gov

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as part of the National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards project, conducts baseline and storm-response photography missions to document and understand the changes in vulnerability of the Nation's coasts to extreme storms. On September 18–19, 2015, the USGS conducted an oblique aerial photographic survey from Navarre Beach, Florida, to Breton Island, Louisiana, aboard a Maule MT57 (aircraft) at an altitude of 500 feet (ft) and approximately 1,200 ft offshore. This mission was conducted to collect baseline data for assessing incremental changes in the beach and nearshore area since the last survey, flown in  September 2014. The data can be used in the assessment of future coastal change.

The photographs provided in this report are Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) images. ExifTool was used to add the following to the header of each photograph: time of collection, Global Positioning System (GPS) latitude, GPS longitude, keywords, credit, artist (photographer), caption, copyright, and contact information. The photograph locations are an estimate of the position of the aircraft at the time the photograph was taken and do not indicate the location of any feature in the images (see the Navigation Data page). These photographs document the state of the barrier islands and other coastal features at the time of the survey. Pages containing thumbnail images of the photographs, referred to as contact sheets, were created in 5-minute segments of flight time. These segments can be found on the Photographs and Maps page. Photographs can be opened directly with any JPEG-compatible image viewer by clicking on a thumbnail on the contact sheet.

In addition to the photographs, a Google Earth Keyhole Markup Language (KML) file is provided and can be used to view the images by clicking on the marker and then the thumbnail or the link below the thumbnail. The KML file was created using the photographic navigation files. This KML file can be found in the kml folder.

#### Suggested Citation

Morgan, K.L.M., 2016, Baseline coastal oblique aerial photographs collected from Navarre Beach, Florida, to Breton Island, Louisiana, September 18–19, 2015: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1008, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds1008.

ISSN: 2327-638X (online)

#### Study Area

#### Table of Contents

- Abstract
- Getting Started
- List of Figures
- Table of Images
- References Cited
- Acknowledgments
- Information Statement
- System Requirements
- Contact
§ 405.1048 The effect of an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision. ( a ) The decision of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator on a request for hearing is binding on all parties unless— ( 1 ) A party requests a review of the decision by the Council within the stated time period or the Council reviews the decision issued by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator under the procedures set forth in § 405.1110, and the Council issues a final decision or remand order or the appeal is escalated to Federal district court under the provisions at § 405.1132 and the Federal district court issues a decision.
( 2 ) The decision is reopened and revised by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator or the Council under the procedures explained in § 405.980;
( 3 ) The expedited access to judicial review process at § 405.990 is used;
( 4 ) The ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision is a recommended decision directed to the Council and the Council issues a decision; or
( 5 ) In a case remanded by a Federal district court, the Council assumes jurisdiction under the procedures in § 405.1138 and the Council issues a decision.
( b ) The decision of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator on a request for review of a QIC dismissal is binding on all parties unless the decision is reopened and revised by the ALJ or attorney adjudicator under the procedures in § 405.980.
[82 FR 5119, Jan. 17, 2017]
#### ONONTARIO OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. R. P. TRUCKING CO., INC., Appellee.

No. 79-2453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 24, 1981.

*1118Alexander Myers of Christiansen, Jacknin & Myers, Palm Beach, for appellant.

V. Craig McCaghren of McCaghren Law Offices, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a final judgment attacks two orders of the trial court. One granted appellee’s motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of appellant’s case-in-chief and the other sustained an objection to exhibits offered into evidence by appellant. We disagree with both determinations and reverse.

Appellant brought this action allegedly for breach of contract. From what we can glean from the arguments in support of and in opposition to the motion for directed verdict and the trial court’s comments thereon, the motion was granted because appellant failed to prove any damages. However, this court held in *Muroff v. Dill,*386 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), *pet. for rev. denied,*392 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1981):

> [W]e are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in not directing a verdict. Appellees/cross-appellants were entitled to nominal damages once the breach of contract had been established, notwithstanding the absence of evidence regarding the correct measure of damages.

*Accord Price v. Southern Home Ins. Co. of the Carolinas,*100 Fla. 338, 129 So. 748, 751 (1930); *Beverage Canners, Inc.*v. *Cott Corp.,*372 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Consequently, the trial court improperly granted the motion.

The second point raised by appellant concerning the exclusion of evidence by the trial court will undoubtedly arise at the new trial and therefore we shall consider the propriety of the trial court’s ruling. Appellant offered into evidence exhibits which constituted a compilation typed by appellee’s secretary from a daily log. Ap-pellee objected on the ground that the original book and daily log were the best evidence. The trial court agreed with appellee that the best evidence rule applied and therefore only permitted the original into evidence. At the time of the offer appel-lee’s owner was testifying, having been called as an adverse witness by appellant. Appellant’s purpose for offering the two compilations instead of the original log was to show inconsistencies among them, thereby bearing on the credibility of the witness and the record keeping of his company. For impeachment purposes the exhibits should have been admitted. The best evidence rule is not applicable where the matter being offered is not used to prove the truth of statements contained therein. See *Urga v. State,*104 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial consistent herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
CONFIRMATION OF JUDICIAL SALE.

Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.

#### Lake Shore Saw Mill & Lumber Co. v. Cleveland Realization Co. et al.

Decided, May, 1919.

*Judicial Sales*— Discretion *of Trial Judge as to Confirmation*— Subject *to Review, but not to Reversal, Unless.*

1. The question whether or not a sale of real estate by the sheriff in a foreclosure proceeding should be confirmed rests in the sound discretion of the court, and an order of confirmation will be reversed only upon proof of abuse of such discretion.

2. An abuse of discretion is not shown by the mere fact that one or more of the reviewing judges would have exercised such discretion in a manner different from that of the trial court.

*Young, Stocker <& Fenner,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. Lewenthal*and *W. S. Hannon,*for defendants in error.

*399By the Court.

Heard on error.

This is a proceeding in error to reverse the common pleas court ..for refusing to confirm a sale of real estate made by the sheriff in a foreclosure proceedings, where it is conceded that the proceedings were regular and in all respects according to law.

The question is suggested that this is not such a judgment or final order as is subject to review by this court, but that question was not argued and we do not find it necessary to consider it.

We take it to be settled that the question of whether or not a sale should be confirmed rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and, if subject to review,.the order of the lower court can be reversed only when the record discloses that the trial court has abused its discretion. It is a wise public policy which vests such discretion in the trial court.

An abuse of such discretion is not shown by the mere fact that one or more of the judges of this court would have exercised the discretion differently if sitting as a trial court.

We have carefully examined this matter and are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion.

The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Dunlap, Washburn and Vickery, JJ., concur.
HomeTransnational Organized Crime Rewards Program Targets

For the latest information, visit our Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program page 

Back to Top
#### LA BELLE IRON WORKS v. THE UNITED STATES.

[55 C. Cls., 462 ; 256 U. S., 377.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

The act of October 3, 1917, c. 63, Tit. II, 40 Stat., 300, 302, in providing for a deduction of a percentage of “ invested capital ” before computation of the “ excess profits ” tax upon the income of a domestic corporation, does not mean to include in its definition of invested capital (sec. 207) any marking up of the valuation of assets upon the corporate books to correspond With increase of market value or any paper transaction by which new shares are issued in exchange for old ones in the same corporation but which is no.t in substance and effect a new acquisition of capital property by.it.

A corporation, having acquired ore lands for $190,000.00 proved, by extensive explorations and developments, that their actual cash value was over $10,105,500; thereupon, in 1912, it increased their book valuation by adding $10,000,000, as surplus, and based thereon, declared a stock dividend for $9,915,400, which was carried out by surrender and cancellation of all the common stock, of like aggregate par value, and the issuance of one share each of preferred and new common stock for each share of the stock surrendered. The increased value of the ore lands persisted when an excess profits tax was laid under the act of 1917, *supra. Held:*That such increase of value was not included in- “ invested capital ” under sec. 207 (a) (3), as “paid in or earned surplus and undivided profits” (though an amount equal to the cost of the exploration and development might be), nor under *id.*(2) as “ the actual cash value of tangible property paid in other than cash, for the stock or shares ” of the corporation.

The fifth ámendment having no “ equal protection ” clause, the only rule of uniformity prescribed by the Constitution respecting duties, imposts, and excises is the territorial uniformity required by Art. I, sec. 8.

There were reasons, both theoretical and practical, including that of convenience in administration, for basing “ invested capital ” upon actual costs to the exclusion of higher estimated values; and resulting inequalities to corporations differently situated do not make out an arbitrary discrimination, amounting to confiscation and violating tbe due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. Justice PitNet

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 16, 1921.
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.213 Exceptions from advance notice. The agency may send a notice not later than the date of action if— ( a ) The agency has factual information confirming the death of a beneficiary;
( b ) The agency receives a clear written statement signed by a beneficiary that— ( 1 ) He no longer wishes services; or
( 2 ) Gives information that requires termination or reduction of services and indicates that he understands that this must be the result of supplying that information;
( c ) The beneficiary has been admitted to an institution where he is ineligible under the plan for further services;
( d ) The beneficiary's whereabouts are unknown, and the post office returns mail directed to him indicating no forwarding address (see § 435.919(f)(4) of this chapter for procedures if the beneficiary's whereabouts become known);
( e ) The agency establishes the fact that the beneficiary has been accepted for Medicaid services by another local jurisdiction, State, territory, or commonwealth;
( f ) A change in the level of medical care is prescribed by the beneficiary's physician;
( g ) The notice involves an adverse determination made with regard to the preadmission screening requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act; or
( h ) The date of action will occur in less than 10 days, in accordance with § 483.15(b)(4)(ii) and (b)(8), which provides exceptions to the 30 days notice requirements of § 483.15(b)(4)(i) of this chapter.
[44 FR 17932, Mar. 29, 1979, as amended at 57 FR 56505, Nov. 30, 1992; 58 FR 25784, Apr. 28, 1993; 78 FR 42301, July 15, 2013; 81 FR 68847, Oct. 4, 2016; 89 FR 22866, Apr. 2, 2024]
§ 435.219 Individuals receiving State plan home and community-based services. If the agency provides State plan home and community-based services to individuals described in section 1915(i)(1), the agency, under its State plan, may, in addition, provide Medicaid to individuals in the community who are described in one or both of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section. ( a ) Individuals who— ( 1 ) Are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid;
( 2 ) Have income that does not exceed 150 percent of the Federal poverty line (FPL);
( 3 ) Meet the needs-based criteria under § 441.715 of this chapter; and
( 4 ) Will receive State plan home and community-based services as defined in § 440.182 of this chapter.
( b ) Individuals who— ( 1 ) Would be determined eligible by the agency under an existing waiver or demonstration project under sections 1915(c), 1915(d), 1915(e) or 1115 of the Act, but are not required to receive services under such waivers or demonstration projects;
( 2 ) Have income that does not exceed 300 percent of the Supplemental Security Income Federal Benefit Rate (SSI/FBR); and
( 3 ) Will receive State plan home and community-based services as defined in § 440.182 of this chapter.
( c ) For purposes of determining eligibility under paragraph (a) of this section, the agency may not take into account an individual's resources and must use income standards that are reasonable, consistent with the objectives of the Medicaid program, simple to administer, and in the best interests of the beneficiary. Income methodologies may include use of existing income methodologies, such as the SSI program rules. However, subject to the Secretary's approval, the agency may use other income methodologies that meet the requirements of this paragraph.
[79 FR 3028, Jan. 16, 2014]
#### STATE of Louisiana THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. CENTURIES MEMORIAL PARK ASSOCIATION, INC.

No. 81-C-0061.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1981.

In re Centuries Memorial Park Association, Inc., applying for writ of certiorari, or *1366review, to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo. No. 223-867.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.

DIXON, C. J., is recused, having signed the order of expropriation. C.C.P. 151(3).
HomeFunding Opportunities...General NGO Guidelines

# 									General NGO Guidelines							

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

						Download Guidelines												[1 MB]

Tags

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationNon-governmental OrganizationNotice of Funding OpportunityRefugee AdmissionsRefugees

## Related Articles

-  											 													About Us – Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration			
Read more
 
-  											 													Key Topics – Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration			
Read more
 
-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.316 Special rules for payments to Federally qualified health centers. If an enrollee in an MA plan receives a service from a Federally qualified health center (FQHC) that has a written agreement with the MA organization offering the plan concerning the provision of this service (including the agreement required under section 1857(e)(3) of the Act and as codified in § 422.527)— ( a ) CMS will pay the amount determined under section 1833(a)(3)(B) of the Act directly to the FQHC at a minimum on a quarterly basis, less the amount the FQHC would receive for the MA enrollee from the MA organization (which includes the cost sharing amount the FQHC may charge an enrollee, as established in the contract between the FQHC and the MA organization); and
( b ) CMS will not reduce the amount of the monthly payments under this section as a result of the application of paragraph (a) of this section.
[70 FR 4729, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 76198, Dec. 23, 2005]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,774,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  654,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,428,361
<PP&E>                                     168,771,501
<DEPRECIATION>                           (162,613,213)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,586,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          648,209
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,938,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,586,649
<SALES>                                      3,721,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,757,691
<CGS>                                        1,852,107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,852,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               270,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,635,584
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,635,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,635,584
<EPS-BASIC>                                        971
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      971


</TABLE>
ex10_8b.htm


     

     

    
      
        

      



      AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      


      THIS AMENDMENT is made this 16th day of
December, 2008, by and among Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., a Maryland
corporation (the “Company”), and R. Lee Crabill (the “Executive”).

      


      RECITALS:

      


      The Company and the Executive are
parties to an employment agreement effective as of September 1, 2004, as amended
(the “Employment Agreement”).  The Company now desires to amend the
Employment Agreement for compliance with final regulations under Section 409A of
the Internal Revenue Code.

      


      In consideration of the mutual promises
herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the
Employment Agreement is amended as follows:

      


      1. By adding
after the phrase in the third to last sentence of Section 3(c)(i) “commencing as
of the date of termination of employment” the phrase “, provided that the first
payment shall be made within sixty (60) days following termination of employment
and shall include all payments accrued from the date of termination of
employment to the date of the first payment”.

      


      2. By adding
the following to Section 3(c)(iii):

      


      “The Company shall provide the Release
for the Executive’s execution in sufficient time so that if the Executive timely
executes and returns the Release, the revocation period will expire before the
date the Executive is required to begin to receive payment pursuant to Section
3(c)(i).”

      


      3. By adding
a new Section 9(n) as follows:

      


      “(n)  ‘Termination of
employment’ and similar terms shall refer solely to a ‘separation from
service’ within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.”

      


      Except as specifically amended hereby,
the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this
Amendment.

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
caused this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

      


      OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.:

      


      By: /s/ C. Taylor
Pickett

      


      Print Name: C. Taylor
Pickett

      Title: Chief Executive
Officer

      


      


      R. LEE
CRABILL:

      


      


      /s/ R. Lee
Crabill
#### § 435.902 Simplicity of administration.

The agency's policies and procedures must ensure that eligibility is determined in a manner consistent with simplicity of administration and the best interests of the applicant or beneficiary.

[44 FR 17937, Mar. 23, 1979. Redesignated at 59 FR 48809, Sept. 23, 1994]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)

                       CONSENT OF COUNSEL TO THE COMPANY

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the statements made
as to matters of law and legal conclusions contained in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Texas Utilities Company and Texas Utilities Electric Company for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, under Part I, Item 1--Business--
Regulation and Rules and Environmental Matters, in Texas Utilities Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-27989) and on Form S-4 (No. 333-
45999).

                                    WORSHAM, FORSYTHE
                                       & WOOLDRIDGE, L.L.P.


                                    By: /s/ Neil Anderson
                                        -----------------------------
                                        A Partner

March 26, 1998
Dallas, Texas
#### Ivin BALLEN and Rose Ballen, his wife, Appellants, v. PLAZA DEL PRADO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 75-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 16, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1975.

Caidin, Rothenberg, Kogan, Kornblum & Benjamin, Miami, for appellants.

Weissenborn, Burr & Hyman and Gary M. Carman, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Two points are presented in this appeal by a defendant from a judgment of foreclosure. There is no showing in the briefs or the record that either question was ever presented to the trial court. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed upon the rule stated in *Caldwell v. Peoples Bank of San*
      *91
      *ford,*1917, 73 Fla. 1165, 75 So. 848. See also *Lee County Oil Company v. Marshall,*Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 510, and the cases cited therein.

Affirmed.