alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.965 Application of standard. ( a ) The standard “Equity and Good Conscience”, will be applied when the facts and circumstances in a particular case indicate a need for reasonableness and moderation in the exercise of the Government's rights. The decision reached should not be unduly favorable or adverse to either side. The phrase *equity and good conscience* means arriving at a fair decision between the obligor and the Government. In making this determination, consideration will be given to the following elements, which are not intended to be all inclusive: ( 1 ) *Fault of debtor.* Where actions of the debtor contribute to creation of the debt.
( 2 ) *Balancing of faults.* Weighing fault of debtor against Department of Veterans Affairs fault.
( 3 ) *Undue hardship.* Whether collection would deprive debtor or family of basic necessities.
( 4 ) *Defeat the purpose.* Whether withholding of benefits or recovery would nullify the objective for which benefits were intended.
( 5 ) *Unjust enrichment.* Failure to make restitution would result in unfair gain to the debtor.
( 6 ) *Changing position to one's detriment.* Reliance on Department of Veterans Affairs benefits results in relinquishment of a valuable right or incurrence of a legal obligation.
( b ) In applying this single standard for all areas of indebtedness, the following elements will be considered, any indication of which, if found, will preclude the granting of waiver: ( 1 ) Fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact (see § 1.962(b)).
( 2 ) *Bad faith.* This term generally describes unfair or deceptive dealing by one who seeks to gain thereby at another's expense. Thus, a debtor's conduct in connection with a debt arising from participation in a VA benefits/services program exhibits bad faith if such conduct, although not undertaken with actual fraudulent intent, is undertaken with intent to seek an unfair advantage, with knowledge of the likely consequences, and results in a loss to the government.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5302(c))
[39 FR 26400, July 19, 1974, as amended at 58 FR 3841, Jan. 12, 1993; 58 FR 7296, Feb. 5, 1993; 69 FR 62202, Oct. 25, 2004]
Potential Environmental Impacts of Quarrying Stone in Karst -- A Literature Review

#### *By* William H. Langer

Version 1.0



The results of this report can lead to better utilization of our valuable
karst resources, in sustainable ways that minimize environmental damage.

This report is the result of an extensive literature search to determine 
the state-of-the-knowledge regarding environmental impacts from 
quarrying carbonate rocks in karst. There is widespread concern 
for the effects that human activities, such as deforestation, 
agricultural practices, urbanization, tourism, military activities, 
water exploitation, and quarrying, have upon the karst environment.
Carbonate rocks, which are one of many natural resources that are extracted
from karst areas, have numerous construction, agricultural, and industrial
uses, and for some uses there is no substitute. Judging from the 
volumes of literature about environmental damage in areas of karst, it 
is much more likely that problems will result from activities that aggregate 
mining supports (highways, bridges, housing developments, commercial 
centers, and so forth), than from quarrying itself. At times, 
quarrying is wrongly blamed for the damage created by other activities. 
Nevertheless, if quarrying in karst is not conducted carefully, it can 
result in damage to the environment and associated increases in costs 
for environmental compliance or liability.

separator bar

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format. The latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software is required to view it. If you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free of charge, click here.

Screen-optimized Report PDF file (3 MB)

Print-optimized Report PDF file (50 MB)

Text-only PDF file (279 KB)
(This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.)

separator bar



|AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/of/2001/ofr-01-0484/
Questions or Assistance: USGS Web Contact
Page Last Modified: Wed Dec  7 18:29 EDT 2016

---
§ 17.380 In vitro fertilization treatment. ( a ) ( 1 ) In vitro fertilization may be provided when clinically appropriate to— ( i ) A veteran who has a service-connected disability that results in the inability of the veteran to procreate without the use of fertility treatment; and,
( ii ) The spouse of such veteran, as provided in § 17.412.
( 2 ) For the purposes of this section, “a service-connected disability that results in the inability of the veteran to procreate without the use of fertility treatment” means, for a male veteran, a service-connected injury or illness that prevents the successful delivery of sperm to an egg; and, for a female veteran with ovarian function and a patent uterine cavity, a service-connected injury or illness that prevents the egg from being successfully fertilized by sperm.
( 3 ) In vitro fertilization treatment will be provided under this section when clinically appropriate and to the same extent such treatment is provided to a member of the Armed Forces who incurs a serious injury or illness on active duty pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1074(c)(4)(A), as described in the April 3, 2012, memorandum issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs on the subject of “Policy for Assisted Reproductive Services for the Benefit of Seriously or Severely Ill/Injured (Category II or III) Active Duty Service Members,” and the guidance issued by the Department of Defense to implement such policy, including any limitations on the amount of such benefits available to such a member.
( b ) The time periods regarding embryo cryopreservation and storage set forth in part III(G) and in part IV(H) of the memorandum referenced in paragraph (a)(3) of this section do not apply. Embryo cryopreservation and storage may be provided to an individual described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section without limitation on the duration of such cryopreservation and storage.
[82 FR 6275, Jan. 19, 2017, as amended at 82 FR 11153, Feb. 21, 2017; 84 FR 8257, Mar. 7, 2019]
42066.

#### AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. JORDAN.

Argued June 8, 1966

Decided June 16, 1966.

*Brackett, Lyle & Arnall, H. P. Amall,*for appellants.

*Nathan, Hutto & Lee, J. S. Hutto,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

This case is controlled by the second division of the opinion in the case of *Armour & Co. v. Walker,*99 Ga. App. 64, 66 (107 SE2d 691). In this case as in that case the claimant sought other medical treatment, after having been dismissed by the physician furnished by the employer at a time when she was admittedly still suffering a disability arising out of and in the course of her employment.

The judgment of the trial court that the claimant was authorized to seek other medical treatment after being dismissed by the physician furnished by the employer was not error.

*Judgment-affirmed.*

*Hall and Been, JJ., concur.*
</ref_section>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00105- CR

Justin Murph y, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 3 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CR- 07- 2001 04, H ONO RAB LE JO N N. WI SSER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant J ustin Murphy has filed a notice of appea l from the trial court’s order d eny

ing his petition for writ of habea s corpus, in which he soug ht to collater ally attack his 2007 conviction for the m isdemeanor offe nse o f d ri v i n g while i ntox icated. The S tate has filed a 1 motion to di smiss, arg uing tha t Murphy failed to timely

file his notice of a

ppeal. I n a criminal case , the notice of appea l must be filed “within 30 day s . . . afte r the day the trial court enter s an appea lable order .” Her e, the trial court signe d its order deny ing habea s relief 2

on Aug ust 28, 2014. Murphy filed his notice of appea l from that order on Fe bruar y 10, 2015, well

The petition was filed while Murphy was fac ing char g es for a s ec o nd driving -while- 1 intox icated of

fense

. Tex. R. App. P . 26.2(a) (1). 2bey ond the 30-day deadline. Acc ording ly , the notice of appea l is untimely and we have no option 3 b ut to dismiss the appea l for lack of jurisdiction. We g rant the State’s motion and dismiss t h e 4
appea l.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and B ourland Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: June 18, 2015 Do Not Publish

On J anuar y 27, 2015, Murphy filed a motion for rehe aring of the trial court’s order deny ing 3 habea s relief

, which the trial court denied in a written order dated Fe bruar y 9, 2015. We n ote that the appea lable order in this ca s e i s t h e o rder deny ing habea s relief , not the order deny ing the m o t i o n for rehe aring

. See Rodarte v. State , 860 S.W .2d 108, 109-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); see also Edwards v. State , No. 14-03-01381- CR, 2004 Tex. App. L EXI S 3728, at *3-4 (Tex. App. —Houston [14t h Dist.] Apr. 29, 2004, pet. ref ’d) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (“The appell at e ti metables for appea ls to this court are calculate d from the date of sentenc ing or signing of the a ppeala ble orde r, not the over

ruling of a motion for ne w trial or r ehea ring .”). S ee Castil lo v. State , 369 S.W .3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Slaton v. S t a t e , 4 981 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 2
#### § 61.10 Benefits: Tuition and other expenses.

The Surgeon General may authorize allowances for payment of expenses, in whole or in part, of tuition, fees, equipment, supplies, attendance at meetings required to carry out the purposes of the fellowship, or other expenses of the activities of the fellow.
§ 83.7 Who can submit a petition on behalf of a class of employees? A petitioner or petitioners for a petition must be one or more, up to a maximum of three, of the following: ( a ) One or more DOE, DOE contractor or subcontractor, or AWE employees, who would be included in the proposed class of employees, or their survivors; or
( b ) One or more labor organizations representing or formerly having represented DOE, DOE contractor or subcontractor, or AWE employees, who would be included in the proposed class of employees; or
( c ) One or more individuals or entities authorized in writing by one or more DOE, DOE contractor or subcontractor, or AWE employees, who would be included in the proposed class of employees, or their survivors.
#### § 1.704 [Reserved]
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 491/2005

of 29 March 2005         

fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Jordan

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1), and in particular Article 5(2)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Community producer and import prices for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses as referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto for the period from 30 March to 12 April 2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 March 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 382, 31.12.1987, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1300/97 (OJ L 177, 5.7.1997, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 72, 18.3.1988, p. 16. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2062/97 (OJ L 289, 22.10.1997, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 346, 31.12.2003, p. 65.

(4)OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 117.

(5)OJ L 2, 5.1.2005, p. 4.

----

ANNEX

----
§ 13.240 Funds of beneficiaries less than the age of majority. ( a ) *General.* Except as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, a fiduciary who receives VA benefits on behalf of a beneficiary who is less than the age of majority may use the benefits only for the use and benefit of that beneficiary and only if the fiduciary first determines that the person or persons who have custody of the beneficiary and are responsible for the beneficiary's needs are unable to provide for those needs.
( b ) *Education benefits.* A fiduciary who receives VA education benefits on behalf of a beneficiary who is less than the age of majority may use the benefits for the beneficiary's education regardless of the ability of the person or persons who have custody of the beneficiary to pay for the beneficiary's education.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5502)
#### Ray BEST *v.*Judy WILLIAMS

76-71

537 S.W. 2d 793

Opinion delivered June 21, 1976

[Rehearing denied July 19, 1976.]

*Paul K. Roberts,*for appellant.

*John F. Gibson Jr.,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Ray Best and appellee Judy Williams were divorced November 11, 1972. In that decree appellee was awarded for life a one-third interest in 210 acres of land owned by appellant. Following her remarriage and the relinquishment of custody of the two children to appellant, appellee brought an action to partition the 210 acres. The trial court entered an order appointing commissioners to divide the lands in kind. For reversal appellant raises the issues hereinafter discussed.

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that this partition action is prevented by the homestead laws, Ark. Const., art. 9, § 3. As pointed out in *Keesee*v. *Bushart,*203 Ark. 668, 158 S.W. 2d 915 (1942), one may not claim the homestead exemption as to a claimant against whom he does not have an exclusive possessory right — *i.e.*a homestead exemption cannot be claimed in a partition suit against a co-tenant.

*31Appellant also complains that the trial court erred in consolidating the partition suit with the original divorce action. Since the divorce depree would not be conclusive of the right of appellee to a partition, we can find no prejudicial error that could result from the consolidation.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in awarding the appellee in the original divorce action a one-third interest for life in the whole 210 acres instead of designating the specific property to which she was entitled. Not having appealed from that decision within the time permitted by law, the appellant is not now in a position to complain.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.160 Affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse required to avoid cancellation of registration.

(a) During the following time periods, the owner of the registration must file an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse, or the registration will be cancelled:

(1)

(i) For registrations issued under the Trademark Act of 1946, on or after the fifth anniversary and no later than the sixth anniversary after the date of registration; or

(ii) For registrations issued under prior Acts, on or after the fifth anniversary and no later than the sixth anniversary after the date of publication under section 12(c) of the Act; and

(2) For all registrations, within the year before the end of every ten-year period after the date of registration.

(3) The affidavit or declaration may be filed within a grace period of six months after the end of the deadline set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, with payment of the grace period surcharge per class required by section 8(a)(3) of the Act and § 2.6.

(b) For the requirements for the affidavit or declaration, see § 2.161.

[64 FR 48924, Sept. 8, 1999, as amended at 75 FR 35976, June 24, 2010]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### § 65.7 For what purposes may grant funds be spent?

Individuals receiving training shall be entitled only to the stipends and allowances included in a budget approved by the Director, taking into account the cost of living and such other factors as the needs of the program and the availability of funds.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22396]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date:  Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 2 p.m.

Place:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status:  Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered:  Compliance Weekly Report--Commission Briefing
    The staff will brief the Commission on various compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 11, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22396 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
```
Summary of Meeting with the National Mining Association

March 31, 2015
List of Attendees Erika Farris, EPA Amanda Aspatore, NMA Pete Ford, EPA Bryan Rittenhouse, EPA Mary Ellen Levine, EPA Greg Schaner, EPA Kevin Weiss, EPA

On phone: Sam Brown, Hunton and Williams Jesse Pritts, EPA

Summary of Meeting

During the meeting, EPA discussed further with the National Mining Association (NMA) and its legal representative the applicability of the Construction and Development (C&D) Effluent Limitation Guideline (E LG) to stormwater discharges at mining operations. EPA discussed with NMA potential changes to the mining sector

- specific requirements that would clarify the applicability of the effluent limits from the rule to the categories of construction activities at a mine that were analyzed under the
rule. EPA also discussed with NMA potential limits that could apply to pre

- active mining earth disturbances that are not subject to limits from the C&D ELG.
###### Editorial Note on Part 501

#### Editorial Note:

At 78 FR 4766, Jan. 23, 2013, parts 500-599 were transferred from Title 37, Chapter V, to Title 37, Chapter IV. Chapter V was removed and reserved.

#### § 501.11 Submissions and inquiries.

All submissions or inquiries should be directed to the Chief Counsel for NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1052, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1052; telephone: (301) 975-2803; email: *nistcounsel@nist.gov.*

[78 FR 4766, Jan. 23, 2013]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – July 6, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – July 6, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

July 5, 2022

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Indonesia and Thailand from July 6-11, 2022.  Please click here for more information.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE WENDY R. SHERMAN**

Deputy Secretary Sherman attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon has no public appointments.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS UZRA ZEYA**

Under Secretary Zeya attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing*.*

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top