alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506 (c) (2) (A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is providing opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 639-7090. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques for other forms of information technology. Send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should  be received within 60 days of this notice. 

## Proposed Projects 

1. PHS Supplements to the Application for Federal Assistance—SF-424 (0920-0428)—Extension. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is requesting a three-year extension for continued use of the Supplements to the Request for Federal Assistance Application (SF-424). The Checklist, Program Narrative, and the Public Health System Impact Statement (third party notification) (PHSIS) are a part of the standard application for State and local governments and for private non-profit and for-profit organizations when applying for financial assistance from PHS grant programs. The Checklist assists applicants to ensure that they have included all required information necessary to process the application. The Checklist data helps to reduce the time required to process and review grant applications, expediting the issuance of grant awards. The PHSIS Third Party Notification Form is used to inform State and local health agencies of community-based proposals submitted by non-governmental applicants for Federal funding. 

The total annual cost to the respondents is $1,184,452. 

Dated: January 11, 2000.

Nancy Cheal, 

Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

[FR Doc. 00-1026 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.605 Allowable fees and expenses. ( a ) Except as provided by § 747.604(b), awards will be based on rates customarily charged by persons engaged in the business of acting as attorneys, agents and expert witnesses, even if the services were made available without charge or at a reduced rate.
( b ) No award under this subpart for the fee of an attorney or agent may exceed $75.00 per hour. No award to compensate an expert witness may exceed the highest rate at which NCUA is permitted to pay expert witnesses. However, an award may also include the reasonable expenses of the attorney, agent or witness as a separate item, if the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily charges clients separately for such expenses.
( c ) In determining the reasonableness of the fee sought for an attorney, agent, or expert witness, the NCUA Board shall consider the following: ( 1 ) If the attorney, agent, or expert witness is in private practice, his or her customary fee for like services, or, if he or she is an employee of the applicant, the fully allocated cost of the services;
( 2 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which the attorney, agent, or expert witness ordinarily performs services;
( 3 ) The time actually spent in the representation of the applicant; and
( 4 ) Such other factors as may bear on the value of the services provided.
( d ) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, report, test, project, or similar matter prepared on behalf of the party may be awarded to the extent that the charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services, and the study or other matter was necessary for preparation of the applicant's case.
[56 FR 37767, Aug. 8, 1991, as amended at 75 FR 34622, June 18, 2010]
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

36 37 38 39 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 05/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL
#### B. D. Jordan, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Florida Publishing Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Decision Filed February 24, 1923.

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Suwannee County; M. F. Horne, Judge. -

*238
      *L. E. Robertson,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*J. B. Johnson,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Cúriam.

This cause- having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and their record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the’court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

All concur.
### SERVED : DECEMBE K 16 , 201 1 .^•?,[K^TMElNl TO F U.S
. DliPARTMBN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N ^^'[)'^^ ^ n^c^^ ^ OFFlC n O FHEARING S -."-^^r. i UhL-.hAlKJN b WASHINGTON , DC .^, , ^ m \ DE C i q Aq : K S 

### I N THE MATTEROF GREA T LAKE S AVIATION , LTD
. •A A DOCKE T NO
. [T O B E ASSIGNED l FDM S NO
. FAA-2011-067 2

NOTIC E O FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designate da s Cas e No
. 2011NM210012 ) ha s been assigne dlo Administrativ e La w Judg e RichardC
. Goodwin
. All futur e pleading s and othe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve don the Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an

dth e othe r

person s o

n the attache dServic e List
.

...Chief Administrativ e La

w J^dg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFDMSNo
. FAA-2011-067 2 (Civi l Penall y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON E COP Y Timoth y R
. Thornton , Respondent' s Counse l Brigg s an dMorgan , P.A
. 220 0 ID S Cente r 8 0 Sout h8l hStree t Minneapolis , M N 55402-215 7 TEL : 612-977-840 0 FAX : 612-977-865 0 Kyl e Lomazow , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Norlhwcs l Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , SW
. Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-184 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : . 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r service i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, us

e th e follovvin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Attenlion : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
. - 2 -
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

March 5, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00885

- CV

IN RE Gary A. CAMPBELL
, From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 109 35 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding



### ORDER
On February 21 , 2014, we notified A ppellant Gary A. Campbell that his hand

- written,

one

- page brief did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1. We struck Appellant’s brief and ordered him to file an amended brief. On March 3, 2014, Appellant timely filed an amended brief which is sufficient to satisfy our order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9. Appellee’s brief is due to be filed with this court on Apr il 2, 2014

. See id. R. 38.6(b).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### § 622.1 Scope of regulations.

This subpart prescribes rules of practice and procedure in connection with any formal hearing before the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) that is required by the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act) or is ordered for other reasons by the FCA. In connection with any particular matter, reference should also be made to any special requirements of practice and procedure that may be contained in applicable provisions of the Act or the rules adopted by the FCA in subpart B of this part, which special requirements are controlling. The rules in subpart A do not apply to the informal hearings described in subpart C of this part, to any other informal hearing that may be ordered by the FCA, or to formal investigations described in subpart D of this part.
#### § 313.85 Failure to timely request a hearing.

If the FDIC receives a debtor's written request for hearing after 15 business days of the date the FDIC mailed its notice of intent to seek garnishment, the FDIC shall provide a hearing to the debtor. However, the FDIC will not delay issuance of a withholding order unless it determines that the untimely filing of the request was caused by factors over which the debtor had no control, or the FDIC receives information that the FDIC believes justifies a delay or cancellation of the withholding order.
# C_2006057EN.01002301.xml

| 9.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/23

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 November 2005

in Case E-2/05

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(State aid — Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 SCA — Validity of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Termination of tax measures and recovery of aid — Absolute impossibility to implement a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority)

(State aid — Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 SCA — Validity of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Termination of tax measures and recovery of aid — Absolute impossibility to implement a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority)

(2006/C 57/08)

In Case E-2/05, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under points 2, 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 21/04/COL of 25 February 2004 with regard to International Trading Companies, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Tresselt and Stefán Már Stefánsson (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment of 24 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Declares that by failing to terminate the tax scheme declared incompatible with the EEA Agreement by Decision No 21/04/COL of 25 February 2004, to recover the aid provided, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority as required, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under points 2, 3 and 4 of the said decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by failing to terminate the tax scheme declared incompatible with the EEA Agreement by Decision No 21/04/COL of 25 February 2004, to recover the aid provided, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority as required, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under points 2, 3 and 4 of the said decision.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---
#### COLLMAN V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 17, 1913.)

Heard before Hon. B. M. Milder.

Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court.

A. D. Pitts, and Reese & Reese, for appellant. R. O. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, J. —

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Clarence Paul ROBERTS and Linwood Lee Lloyd, Appellees.

No. 85-5122.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 29, 1986.

The appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc were submitted to this Court. In a requested poll of the Court, Judges RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, SPROUSE, CHAPMAN, WILKINSON and WILKINS voted to rehear the case in banc; and Judges WINTER, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and ER*691VIN voted against rehearing the case in banc. A majority of judges having voted to grant rehearing in banc,

IT IS ORDERED that rehearing in banc is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be calendared for argument at the December session of Court.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127890 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ENTECH PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 127890 

 COA: 249003 

Oakland CC: 2002-042875-CZ 

FELICIANO TRANSPORT, INC., FELICIANO 

LOGISTICS, INC., MANUEL FELICIANO, 

DEIDRE FELICIANO, and MICHAEL 

COCHRAN, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

FALCON GROUP, INC., and DAVID 

MACIEJEWSKI, 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

LEE YESH and NICOLE YESH,

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

JOHN VICK, MARIA VICK, and GREAT

LAKES JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2004 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0320 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 27, 2006 

Clerk
#### § 619.9230 Open-end mortgage loan plans.

A mortgage loan which permits the borrower to obtain additional sums during the term of the loan.
#### ANNA STARR AND DAVID STARR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. ADELPHIA HOLDING CORPORATION, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued February 8, 1940

Decided April 25, 1940.

*522For the plaintiffs-appellants, *Marcus & Levy (Louis San*torf, of counsel).

For the defendant-respondent, *William V. Rosenkrans.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

The trial of this action in the Supreme Court, Passaic Circuit, resulted in a judgment of nonsuit from which this appeal was taken.

The plaintiffs-appellants are husband and wife. The wife claims that a nuisance existed because of the defective condition of part of the sidewalk adjacent to the defendant-respondent’s premises; that because of such condition she fell and was injured while stepping up onto the sidewalk from the street. She says that her foot slipped from off the beveled edge of the sidewalk at the curb. She asks damages for her personal injuries and her husband asks for damages *per qoud.*

The proofs established that neither the owner of the premises, the defendant-respondent, nor its predecessors in title had created this nuisance but that in fact a stranger to the title had done so. It appeared that some utility company, whose identity was not established, had removed a part of the concrete sidewalk at the curb and had erected there a pole for the purpose of carrying its wires, that in resurfacing the concrete around the pole it had beveled the edge of the walk at the curb so that it slanted downwards rather than being at right angles with the perpendicular of the curb, as had been the condition previously.

The rule, as has been previously decided by this court, is that an owner of property abutting on a defective or dilapidated sidewalk which constitutes a nuisance is not liable to persons injured thereon unless the nuisance was caused by his own wrongful act or that of his predecessor in title. *Volke*v. Olway, 115 *N. J. L.*553 and eases therein cited.

The instant case comes squarely within the doctrine of those eases and which are controlling. The trial court was entirely right therefore in granting the judgment of nonsuit. It is affirmed.

*523
      *For affirmance—The*Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— Hone.
#### § 713.7 May the NCUA Board require a federally insured credit union to secure additional insurance coverage?

The NCUA Board may require additional coverage when the NCUA Board determines that a federally insured credit union's current coverage is inadequate. The federally insured credit union must purchase this additional coverage within 30 days.

[84 FR 35525, July 24, 2019]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20362 Summary Calendar

JESSIE LEE WASHINGTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. HARRIS COUNTY DEPUTY D. HARRISON, CO

- II Guard; KELLY STRONG, Senior Warden; T. BURSON, Unit Major; BRYANT COLLIER, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director; B. SMITH, Assistant Warden , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CV

- 3326

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jessie Lee Washington , Texas prisoner # 901757, p roceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) . Additionally, he moves for the appointment of counsel. Washington does not challenge the district court ’ s determination that, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, he has brought a civil

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 6, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20362 Document: 00514750773 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2018No. 18

- 20362

2 act ion or appeal in a United States court that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim

. Accordingly, to overcome the § 1915(g) bar, he must fall within the “imminent danger” exception. Washington has not established, nor do es the record r eflect, that he wa s under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his notices of appeal or sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal

. See Ba ñ os v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 88 4

- 8 5 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, his IFP status is decertified , the appeal is dismissed , and the motion for the appointment of
counsel is denied. Washington has 30 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee should he wish to reinstate his appeal. IFP DECERTIFIED; § 1915(g ) BAR IMPOSED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED. Case: 18-20362 Document: 00514750773 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2018
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Adelphia Communications Corporation ("Adelphia") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William T. Schleyer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Adelphia, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
November 4, 2005

| |  | /s/WILLIAM T. SCHLEYERWilliam T. Schleyer Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
§ 611.1158 Grandfather provision. ( a ) *Scope.* The following equity investments in UBEs are grandfathered from the Notice and Approval provisions under §§ 611.1154 and 611.1155, respectively. ( 1 ) Those UBE formations or equity investments that received specific, written approval by FCA prior to the effective date of this regulation; and
( 2 ) Those UBE formations or equity investments that occurred prior to the effective date of this regulation to acquire or manage unusual or complex collateral associated with loans.
( b ) *System institutions' obligations.* All System institutions with grandfathered UBEs: ( 1 ) Remain subject to their conditions of approval;
( 2 ) Are subject to the ongoing requirements of § 611.1156 and the disclosure and reporting requirements of § 611.1157; and
( 3 ) May not change or expand the authorized business activity, service, or function of the UBE as approved by FCA, add or increase the level of non-System ownership in the UBE to the extent such ownership is authorized under § 611.1153(j), or change control of the UBE as control is defined in § 611.1151 without giving written notice of such changes to FCA at least 10 business days in advance of any such change or expansion.
( 4 ) A System institution may not proceed with any change or expansion as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section if the FCA notifies the institution before the end of the 10 business day advance notice period that the proposed change or expansion is material and must be submitted for FCA approval under the provisions of § 611.1155.
( c ) *System institution investments or reinvestments in grandfathered UBEs.* System institutions investing for the first time in grandfathered UBEs or reinvesting after having previously divested their equity investment must provide notice to FCA or obtain FCA approval under either the notice provision in § 611.1154 or the approval provision in § 611.1155 depending on the function, service, or activity of the grandfathered UBE in which the institution seeks to invest or reinvest.