alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dec 03 09 06:07p Colleen HcKaughan (520)498-1333 p. 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC110N AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

November 25. 2009
David Modeer General Manager Central Arizona Project 23636 

### No 7th Street Phoenix. Arizona 85024
RE: Request for Additional Infonnation on CAP Water Pricing Concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Future Best Available Retrofit Technology Rulemaking
Dear Mr. Modeer:
We met with the Bureau ofReclamation ("Bureau") on October27,2009, in Phoenix. Arizonato discuss our Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning Best Available Retrofit Technology (BARn determinations for the Four Comers PowerPlant and Navajo Generating Station. 

### lhediscussion was helpful to us in better understanding how a 

### future BART rulemaking may impact the price ofwaterbeing supplied by the Central Arizona Project 

### ("CAPj, and specifically how any price change could impact Indian tribes that use the CAP water.
As background, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 ("EPA Region 9") is tasked with meeting the requirements ofthe Regional HazeRule and reducing visibility-impairingpollutants from the two powerplants located within the Navajo Nation. as those plants are affecting multiple national parks and wilderness areas, including the Grand Canyon inArizona 

### In making our future BART determination, we must consider five factors: the costs ofcompliance (i.e. cost effectiveness), energy and non-air quality environmental impacts ofcompliance, existing pollution control equipment, 

### the remaining useful life of

### the source, andthe degree ofvisibility improvement. The ANPR soughtpublic input on only two ofthe five BART factors

­ cost effectiveness and visibility improvements.
To more fully develop the administrative record thatwill support ourproposed BART rulemaking, and after further reflection following our discussion in Phoenix, we have some additional questions pertaining to CAP waterpricing. TheBureau suggested that you would be the best source for this information. As such, we would appreciate any additional information that you could provide inresponse to the following question:

PriNM on R«yr:16J Paperp.2 Dec 03 09 06:07p Colleen McKauchan (520]498-1333

What would be the effect on the cost ofwater from the CAP for the various BART retrofit options outlined 

### in the A1\TpR?
Please provide a response atyour earliest convenience. but we would appreciate a response by December 28,2009 ifpossible. Ifyou would like to discuss this further, you can call me at 520-498-0118. or have one ofyour staffmembers call Kate Hoag ofmy staffat 415-972-3970. Thank you for yourtime and attention to ourrequest. Sincerely.

## ~~~~ Colleen McKaughan Associate Director Air Division USEP A, Region 9

2
#### Ann Parks et al., Appellants, v Richard G. Hughes et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[698 NYS2d 193]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City,*167 AD2d 983, 984). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Schwerzmann, J. — Reargument.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
#### BROWN v. GRAYSON.

(Decided February 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. R. C. Brickell.

Melvin Hutson, for appellant. No counsel marked for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of DirectorsFairPoint Communications, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-122809) andon Form S-3 (Nos. 333-127759 and 333-127760) ofFairPoint Communications, Inc., and in the related prospectuses, of ourreport dated March 12, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of FairPoint Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) asof December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), comprehensive income (loss), andcash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2006, and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, whichreports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-Kof FairPoint Communications, Inc.

Our report dated March 12, 2007 on management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2006 contains an explanatory paragraph that states FairPoint Communications, Inc.acquired The Germantown IndependentTelephone Company (GITC), Unite Communications Systems, Inc. (Unite), andCass County Telephone Company Limited Partnership and LEC Long Distance, Inc.(Cass County) during the year ended December 31, 2006, andmanagement excluded these subsidiaries from its assessment of the effectivenessof FairPoint Communications, Inc.’s internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2006. Internal control over financialreporting of GITC, Unite, and Cass County is associated with total assets of$36.6 million and total revenues of $6.6 million, included in theconsolidated financial statements of FairPoint Communications, Inc. andsubsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Our audit ofinternal control over financial reporting of FairPoint Communications, Inc.and subsidiaries also excluded an evaluation of the internal control overfinancial reporting of GITC, Unite, and Cass County.

Our report dated March 12,2007 on the consolidated financial statements refers to the Company’s adoptionof Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (revised2004), *Share-Based Payment,*effective January 1,2006.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Omaha, NebraskaMarch 12, 2007

----
#### HERMAN B. ANDERSON, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Argued and Submitted October 4, 1911.

Opinion Filed March 5, 1912.

The opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals in this case (149 Mo. App. 266) is adopted as the opinión of the court.

Appeal from Stoddard Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *J. L. Fort,*Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

*W. F. Evans, W. J. Orr*and J. *H. Orr*for appellant.

*Wilson Cramer*for respondent.,

PER CURIAM.

This case was originally appealed to the Supreme Court from a judgment of the circuit court of Stoddard county in favor of plaintiff. Afterwards by reason of the increase of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals the Supreme Court transferred it to this court, from which it was transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals where the judgment of the circuit court was reversed and the cause remanded. The opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals will be found under the title Anderson v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 266, 130 S. W. 82. The Supreme Court having subsequently held that all proceedings in the Springfield Court of Appeals on cases so transferred were null, the cause was sent back to this court and has been duly submitted to and argued before us.

*358On consideration of the evidence in the case we have concluded that the statement of facts made and conclusions of law reached by'the Springfield Court of Appeals when the case was supposed to be within its jurisdiction are correct. We adopt them as announced by Judge Cox andi reported as above as the statement of facts and opinion of our court.

The judgment of the circuit court of Stoddard county is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded to that court.

All concur.
#### § 400.1 Basis.

The basis for the regulations in this chapter is the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, and applicable treaties and international agreements to which the United States is party.
EPA and First Choice Compliance Meeting June 6 , 2013 Attendees EPA

– Li nda Gerber, Paul Miller, Cho Yi Kwan, Erin Knighton, R yan Haerer First Choice Compliance

– Gregg Fahrenbruch, Chris Pay ne EPA and First Choice Compliance met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions to the UST regulations. The discussion included discussion of proposed monthly walkthrough inspections.
#### § 67.7 Access to the National Driver Register.

At the time of application for a certificate issued under this part, each person who applies for a medical certificate shall execute an express consent form authorizing the Administrator to request the chief driver licensing official of any state designated by the Administrator to transmit information contained in the National Driver Register about the person to the Administrator. The Administrator shall make information received from the National Driver Register, if any, available on request to the person for review and written comment.
#### § 100.549 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 100.550, no qualified individual with handicaps shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with handicaps, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.

[53 FR 25884, 25885, July 8, 1988. Redesignated at 59 FR 37159, July 21, 1994, and amended at 60 FR 32587, June 23, 1995]
§ 101.11 Administrative law judge's decision. ( a ) At the conclusion of the hearing the administrative law judge prepares a decision stating findings of fact and conclusions, as well as the reasons for the determinations on all material issues, and making recommendations as to action which should be taken in the case. The administrative law judge may recommend dismissal or sustain the complaint, in whole or in part, and recommend that the respondent cease and desist from the unlawful acts found and take action to remedy their effects.
( b ) The administrative law judge's decision is filed with the Board in Washington, DC, and copies are simultaneously served on each of the parties. At the same time the Board, through its Executive Secretary, issues and serves on each of the parties an order transferring the case to the Board. The parties may accept and comply with the administrative law judge's recommended order, which, in the absence of exceptions, shall become the order of the Board. Or, the parties or counsel for the Board may file exceptions to the administrative law judge's decision with the Board. Whenever any party files exceptions, any other party may file an answering brief limited to questions raised in the exceptions and/or may file cross-exceptions relating to any portion of the administrative law judge's decision. Cross-exceptions may be filed only by a party who has not previously filed exceptions. Whenever any party files cross-exceptions, any other party may file an answering brief to the cross-exceptions. The parties may request permission to appear and argue orally before the Board in Washington, DC. They may also submit proposed findings and conclusions to the Board.
#### § 1410.8 Notation of dispute.

After an individual has filed a statement of disagreement as described in § 1410.7(b), any disclosure of the contested records must contain a notation of the dispute. In addition, a copy of the individual's statement will be provided to the person or agency to whom the disputed record is disclosed. The Service may also, but it is not required to, provide a statement reflecting the agency's reasons for not making the requested amendments.
#### § 1470.5 Effect on other issuances.

All other grants administration provisions of codified program regulations, program manuals, handbooks and other nonregulatory materials which are inconsistent with this part are superseded, except to the extent they are required by statute, or authorized in accordance with the exception provision in § 1470.6.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4842 

To prohibit the suspension or limitation of the admission to the United 

States of au pairs for military families during the COVID–19 pandemic, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21 (legislative day, OCTOBER 19), 2020 

Ms. DUCKWORTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the suspension or limitation of the admission 

to the United States of au pairs for military families 

during the COVID–19 pandemic, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADMISSION OF AU PAIRS FOR MILITARY FAMI4 LIES DURING COVID–19 PANDEMIC. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

6 (b), with respect to the admission to the United States 

7 of aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immi8 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)) 

9 pursuant to J–1 visas to provide childcare for members 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4842 IS

1 of the armed forces (as defined in section 101(a) of title 

2 10, United States Code) through au pair programs, Presi3 dential Proclamation 10052 (85 Fed. Reg. 38263; relating 

4 to suspension of entry of immigrants who present a risk 

5 to the United States labor market during the economic 

6 recovery following the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak) 

7 shall have no force or effect. 

8 (b) EXCEPTION.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland 

10 Security may only deny admission to an alien de11 scribed in subsection (a) pursuant to Presidential 

12 Proclamation 10052 (85 Fed. Reg. 38263) with the 

13 concurrence of the Secretary of Defense and the 

14 Secretary of State. 

15 (2) WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION.—The Secretary 

16 of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and 

17 the Secretary of State shall jointly issue a written 

18 justification for any denial of admission under para19 graph (1). 

20 (3) REPORT.—Not less frequently than month21 ly, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 

22 to Congress a report on denials of admission under 

23 paragraph (1), including the number of such denials 

24 during the preceding month and each written jusVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:46 Oct 28, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4842.IS S4842

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4842 IS

1 tification issued under paragraph (2) during such 

2 period. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
[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:****Be a friend to pollinators.**
 
PDF | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:A 1.68:2046
Item Number:0014-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000934779
 
March 28, 2018
[No. 26980-5-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Leslie D. Biggs, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 00-1-00826-8, Don L. McCulloch and James E. Warme, JJ., entered October 2, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Houghton, J.; Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., dissenting.
EXHIBIT 23- CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-41976 and 333-70466 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-115317, 333-132129-01 and 333-162550-01 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 9, 2011 , relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc., and the effectiveness of American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.














/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP





Detroit, Michigan


February 9, 2011
#### NEW JERSEY INS CO et v BALL et

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21124.

Decided Jan. 23, 1929

JONES, J

On August 5,1925 plaintiff insured his automobile against fire and theft with the New Jersey Insurance Company, with a loss payable clause to a chattel mortgagee. This policy contained a condition that the insurance should be null and void “if at the time a loss occurs there be any other insurance covering against the risks assumed by this policy which would attach if this insurance had not been effected”. Subsequently without the consent of such insurer, other additional insurance upon the same property covering fire and theft was secured from another insurance company, whose policy contained substantially a similar condition. During the life of the two policies the automobile was stolen and destroyed by fire. HELD:— .

AUTOMOBILES

(510 Lb) The condition in the insurance contract of the New Jersey Company voiding its insurance is reasonable and unambiguous and, like other contracts, is en-forcible. The condition clearly invalidates its insurance if, at the time of loss, there was other insurance which would attach had the first insurance not been made or effected.

INSURANCE

(310 Pb) Where a policy of insurance is voided, a chattel mortgagee, having a loss payable clause therein, cannot be subrogated to the rights of the insured since he has none.

(310 C3) Section 9584, General Code, does not affect insurance contracts covering personal property. (Insurance Co v Dennison, 93 Ohio St., 404.) Said section cannot apply in any event, since it contemplates contribution between valid policies only. If one of the policies be invalid, no contribution can be enforced against it.

Kinkade, J Matthias and Day, JJ, concur.
exv10w4





Exhibit
10.4


Restated Second Amendment To

Purchase and Sale Agreement

And Joint Escrow Instructions

(TSG — LITTLE VALLEY)




     THIS RESTATED SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS (this “Restated Amendment”), dated as of October 15, 2009, is by and between TSG
LITTLE VALLEY, LP, a California limited partnership
(“Seller”), and SPT-LAKE ELSINORE HOLDING CO.,
LLC (“Buyer”) (as successor-in-interest by assignment to Shopoff Advisors, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership), and amends that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions
dated as of September 30, 2008, as previously amended (as amended, the “Agreement”). Capitalized
terms used herein shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement. This Restated Amendment
corrects and supersedes that certain Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement between Seller
and Buyer of even date herewith.



     Seller and Buyer agree to amend the Agreement as follows:



     Two Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,900,000.00) of the Purchase Price shall be paid
by Buyer’s execution and delivery into Escrow of (i) an All-Inclusive Purchase Money Note Secured
by Deed of Trust in favor of Seller as Payee therein, in the principal amount of Two Million Nine
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,900,000.00), and (ii) an All-Inclusive Deed of Trust executed by Buyer
in favor of Seller as Beneficiary therein, securing the foregoing All-Inclusive Purchase Money
Note.



     In all other respects the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Restated Amendment as of the date first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Seller:	 	TSG LITTLE VALLEY, L.P., a California limited partnership
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Portfolio Partners, Inc., a California Corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Stevan J. Gromet 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Stevan J. Gromet, President
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Buyer:	 	SPT-LAKE ELSINORE HOLDING CO., LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Shopoff Partners,L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,

sole member
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By:	 	Shopoff General Partner, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, general partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	Shopoff Properties Trust, Inc., a

Maryland corporation, manager
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ William A. Shopoff 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	William A. Shopoff,
 President and CEO
§ 102.95 Priority of cases pursuant to Section 10(l) and (m) of the Act. ( a ) Whenever a charge is filed alleging the commission of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A), (B), (C), 8(b)(7), or 8(e) of the Act, the Regional Office in which such charge is filed or to which it is referred will give it priority over all other cases in the office except cases of like character and cases under Section 8(b)(4)(D) in which it is deemed appropriate to seek injunctive relief of a district court pursuant to Section 10(l) of the Act.
( b ) Whenever a charge is filed alleging the commission of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) or 8(b)(2), the Regional Office in which such charge is filed or to which it is referred will give it priority over all other cases in the office except cases of like character and cases under Section 10(l) of the Act.
July 30, 2015

Mr. Chris Hand

Director of Operations

Key Air, LLC

3 Juliano Drive, Suite 201

Oxford, CT 06478

Dear Mr. Hand:

This is in response to your docket submission letter dated June 23, 2015 and supplemental 

Information submitted July 21, 2015 (public docket No. FAA-2011-0337) petitioning the 

Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Key Air, LLC (Key Air) for an exemption from 

§ 135.225(f) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow Key Air to make instrument flight rules (IFR) takeoffs from foreign and military 

airports when the visibility is less than 1 statute mile or make an instrument approach when 

the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile.

On January 11, 2012, the FAA amended 14 CFR § 135.225(f) relating to takeoff, approach,

and landing minimums (77 FR 1629). A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your 

information.

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the current rule, we will take no further 

action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure