alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:22-cv-00838-TNM Document 10 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 1:22-cv-00838-TNM 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Campaign Legal 

Center hereby gives notice that this action is voluntarily dismissed. Defendant Federal Election 

Commission has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff notices voluntary dismissal of this action, without prejudice. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). 

Dated: May 19, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Megan P. McAllen 

Megan P. McAllen (DC Bar No. 1020509) 

Richard Samuel Horan* 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 

1101 14TH ST. NW, SUITE 400 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 

(202) 736-2200 

mmcallen@campaignlegalcenter.org 

shoran@campaignlegalcenter.org 

* Admitted pro hac vice. Licensed to 

practice in Massachusetts only; District of 

Columbia Bar application pending. 

Supervised by Megan McAllen, a member of 

the D.C. Bar. 

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 19-2336 (JEB)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant,

and

HILLARY FOR AMERICA, et al.,

Defendant-Intervenors.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court 

ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is HELD IN ABEYANCE;

2. Defendant-Intervenors’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN 

PART and HELD IN ABEYANCE IN PART; 

3. Count One of the Amended Complaint, which asserts a cause of action under FECA,

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

4. Defendant-Intervenors shall file a supplemental brief by December 23, 2020, 

addressing Plaintiffs’ APA claim; 

5. Plaintiffs shall file a response by January 13, 2021; and

6. Defendant-Intervenors shall file a reply, if any, by January 27, 2021.

Case 1:19-cv-02336-JEB Document 45 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 2
/s/ James E. Boasberg

JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge

Date: December 2, 2020

Case 1:19-cv-02336-JEB Document 45 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 228.12 Access.

An operator is entitled to access in connection with operations, but no road, trail, bridge, landing area for aircraft, or the like, shall be constructed or improved, nor shall any other means of access, including but not limited to off-road vehicles, be used until the operator has received approval of an operating plan in writing from the authorized officer when required by § 228.4(a). Proposals for construction, improvement or use of such access as part of a plan of operations shall include a description of the type and standard of the proposed means of access, a map showing the proposed route of access, and a description of the means of transportation to be used. Approval of the means of such access as part of a plan of operations shall specify the location of the access route, design standards, means of transportation, and other conditions reasonably necessary to protect the environment and forest surface resources, including measures to protect scenic values and to insure against erosion and water or air pollution.
§ 1351.20 What Government-wide and HHS-wide regulations apply to these programs? A number of other rules and regulations apply or potentially apply to applicants and grantees. These include: ( a ) 2 CFR part 182—Government-wide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace;
( b ) 2 CFR part 376—Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension
( c ) 45 CFR part 16—Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals Board;
( d ) 45 CFR part 30—Claims Collection;
( e ) 45 CFR part 46—Protection of Human Subjects;
( f ) 45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, including nondiscrimination requirements.
( g ) 45 CFR part 80—Nondiscrimination Under Programs Receiving Federal Assistance Through the Department of Health and Human Services Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
( h ) 45 CFR part 81—Practice and Procedure for Hearings Under part 80;
( i ) 45 CFR part 84—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance;
( j ) 45 CFR part 86—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities receiving Federal Financial Assistance;
( k ) 45 CFR part 87—Equal Treatment for Faith Based Organizations;
( l ) 45 CFR part 91—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance;
( m ) 45 CFR part 92—Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities; and
( n ) 45 CFR part 93—New Restrictions on Lobbying.
#### § 1206.1-6 Time and place of termination hearings.

The termination hearing shall be held in Washington, DC, or in the appropriate Service Center or Corporation State Office, at a time and place fixed by the responsible Corporation official unless he determines that for the convenience of the Corporation, or of the parties or their representatives, requires that another place be selected.
|  |  |  | GOLDEN SPIKE |
|--|--|--|--------------|
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 829 

AN ACT 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to clarify 

a provision relating to certain contents of registrations 

under that Act. 

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

†S 829 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disclosing Foreign In3 fluence in Lobbying Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF CONTENTS OF REGISTRATION. 

5 Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 

6 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘the offense.’’ 

10 and inserting the following: ‘‘the offense; and 

11 ‘‘(8) notwithstanding paragraph (4), the name 

12 and address of each government of a foreign country 

13 (including any agency or subdivision of a govern14 ment of a foreign country, such as a regional or mu15 nicipal unit of government) and foreign political 

16 party, other than the client, that participates in the 

17 direction, planning, supervision, or control of any 

18 lobbying activities of the registrant.’’. 

Passed the Senate June 22, 2023. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 829 

AN ACT 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to 

registrations under that Act. clarify a provision relating to certain contents of
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 66803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9265]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

Agenda

Time and Date: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 21, 2006.

Place: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

Status: The one item is open to the public.

Matter to Be Considered: 7845--Highway Accident Report--Motorcoach 
Collision with the Alexandria Avenue Bridge Overpass, George Washington 
Memorial Parkway, Alexandria, Virginia, November 14, 2004.

News Media Contact: Terry William: (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Chris 
Bisett at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, November 17, 2006.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or achived Webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
www.ntsb.gov.

For More Information Contact: Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: November 14, 2006.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-9265 Filed 11-14-06; 3:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
```
§ 1182.2 Definitions. The definitions of the Privacy Act apply to this part. In addition, as used in this part: ( a ) *Agency* means any executive department, military department, government corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Federal government, including the Executive Office of the President or any independent regulatory agency.
( b ) *Business day* means a calendar day, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays.
( c ) *Director* means the Director of the Institute, or his or her designee;
( d ) *General Counsel* means the General Counsel of the Institute, or his or her designee.
( e ) *Individual* means any citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
( f ) *Institute* means the Institute of Museum and Library Services;
( g ) *Institute system* means a system of records maintained by the Institute;
( h ) *Maintain* means to collect, use, store, or disseminate records, as well as any combination of these recordkeeping functions. The term also includes exercise of control over and, therefore, responsibility and accountability for, systems of records;
( i ) Privacy Act or Act means the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a);
( j ) *Record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency and contains the individual's name or another identifying particular, such as a number or symbol assigned to the individual, or his or her fingerprint, voice print, or photograph. The term includes, but is not limited to, information regarding an individual's education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history;
( k ) *Routine use* means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of a record for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected;
( l ) *Subject individual* means the individual to whom a record pertains. Uses of the terms “I”, “you”, “me”, and other references to the reader of the regulations in this part are meant to apply to subject individuals as defined in this paragraph (l); and
( m ) *System of records* means a group of records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by use of the name of the individual or by some number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             380
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   380
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP**

 

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), provides that if part of aregistration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring asecurity pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be named as havingcertified any part of the registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement. 

 

On May 20, 2002, the Company announced that the Board of Directors, upon recommendation of its Audit Committee, ended the engagement of Arthur AndersenLLP as the Company’s independent auditors, and engaged KPMG LLP to serve as the Company’s independent auditors for fiscal 2002. For more information, see the Company’s current report on Form 8-K dated May 20, 2002 filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2002. 

 

Afterreasonable efforts, we have been unable to obtain the consent of Arthur Andersen, our former independent auditors, as to the incorporation by reference of their report for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 into our previously filedregistration statements (Nos. 333-68775, 333-69977, 333-37668, 333-81849, 333-91460, 33-55784 and 333-71762) under the Securities Act, and we have not filed that consent with this Annual Report on Form 10-K in reliance on Rule 437a of the SecuritiesAct of 1933. Because we have not been able to obtain Arthur Andersen’s consent, you will not be able to recover against Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in ourfinancial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions to state a material fact required to be stated therein.
# PAC Table 1

&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000This table was generated on 8/25/20.
PNM Responses to Joe Kordzi’s email of November 1, 2010

Question 1:

In the 10/22/10 revised cost analyses, B&V increased construction indirects by 22% to 

26%. However, we don't see where they mentioned this change in the accompanying 

write-up, nor does it appear to be highlighted as a change in the revised spreadsheets at 

Tables 7 - 10. Therefore, please provide an explanation and support calculations. Please 

provide a breakout of this item, identifying how much is per diem, overtime, 

administration, etc. 

Also, have you assumed a closed or open shop job?

Response:

The calculation method for construction indirects is described in the OAQPS. It was also 

explained during our phone conversation of October 14, 2010. 

For convenience, it is explained again here. The construction indirects line item was 

developed based on the total labor costs for the installation of the SCR equipment. 

B&V’s estimating department has determined that construction indirect rate of 100 

percent of total installation labor cost best represents the cost of construction indirects. 

The table below shows B&V’s calculation of construction indirects.

Direct Installation Cost 

Splits

Scope of installation Material Labor

Foundation & supports 70% 30%

Handling & erection 0% 100%

Electrical 40% 60%

Piping 40% 60%

Insulation

Painting

Demolition 0% 100%

Relocation 0% 100%

Total

Construction Indirects= Direct Installation Labor X 100%

No change was made to this method in the new cost calculations except to escalate the 

costs to 2010 dollars using a 6.2 percent escalation rate. Since not all the costs were 

escalated (auxiliary electric system, site preparation, buildings, catalyst) and since not 

everything was escalated to the same rate (equipment was escalated by 11.2 percent, 

commodities by 8.4 percent, and labor by 6.2 percent), the relative percentage value of 

the construction indirects changed.

It was assumed that union labor would be used on this project.
#### § 1176.6 Review and evaluation.

Regular employment reports will be used to determine levels of part-time employment. This program will also be designated an item of special interest to be reviewed during personnel management reviews.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1456** 

PERCY LEE CLAY; DIANE CLAY , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Commissioner; UN

- NAMED REVENUE OFFICERS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal f rom the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Durham
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 00681

- WO

- PTS )

Submitted : October 19, 2010 Decided: October 25, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circu it Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Percy Lee Clay and Diane Clay , Appellants Pro Se. Teresa E. McLaughlin, Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellees
. Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Percy Lee Clay and Diane Clay appeal the district
court ’ s order s dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, their action challenging their federal income tax liability, as well as th eir motions for reconsideration and recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clay v. I nternal Rev. Serv. , No. 1:08

- cv - 00681

- WO

- PTS (M.D.N.C. Aug
. 19, 2009; Ma r . 18, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 10.28


                                    SCHEDULE

                   Information on 14 substantially identical
                        Assignments of Leases and Rents
         (with respect to Exhibit 10.18) dated as of December 12, 2000
                    to First Union National Bank as Assignee

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Apartment Property                              Assignor
------------------                              --------
<S>                                            <C>
Arbor Trace                                     CRIT-VA, Inc.
Virginia Beach, VA

Ashley Park                                     CRIT-VA, Inc.
Richmond, VA

The Gables                                      CRIT-VA, Inc.
Glen Allen, VA

Trolley Square                                  CRIT-VA, Inc.
Richmond, VA

Trophy Chase                                    CRIT-VA, Inc.
Charlottesville, VA

Heatherwood                                     CRIT-NC II, LLC
Charlotte, NC

Summerwalk                                      CRIT-NC II, LLC
Concord, NC

The Arbors on Forest Ridge                      CAC Limited
Bedford, TX                                     Partnership

Brandywine Park (Cutter's Point)                CAC Limited
Richardson, TX                                  Partnership

Eagle Crest                                     CAC Limited
Irving, TX                                      Partnership

Remington Hills at Las Colinas                  CAC Limited
Irving, TX                                      Partnership

Sierra Ridge                                    CAC Limited
San Antonio, TX                                 Partnership

Timberglen                                      CAC Limited
Dallas, TX                                      Partnership

Toscana                                         CAC Limited
Dallas, TX                                      Partnership
</TABLE>
Strafford,

No. 4957.

#### Antoinette M. Duperre *v.*Isadore N. Duperre.

Argued March 6, 1962.

Decided April 3, 1962.

*Fisher, Parsons ■& Moran {Mr. Harold D. Moran*orally), for the libelant.

*Cooper, Hall & Cooper {Mr. Fred W. Hall*orally), for the libelee.

*110Duncan, J.

“Unless the decree . . . expressly provides for the cessation of payments ... its force continues until it is modified . . . . The libelee may not disobey the order of the decree. His right is to obtain judicial relief from further payments, and not to cease payments without the relief.” *Eaton*v. Eaton, 90 N. H. 4, 8. See *Fowler*v. *Fowler,*97 N. H. 216, 218; *Benjamin*v. *Benjamin,*99 N. H. 117.

In the case before us the order of September 13, 1957 continued in force on April 19, 1961 when the master’s report was approved by the Court and the arrears aggregated $505. Nothing in our law would have prevented termination of the libelee’s obligation for support at some time between the filing of his motion and the date of approval of the master’s report by the Court if justice so- required. However “an award as well as a modification will be set aside only if upon the evidence it clearly appears there has been an abuse of judicial discretion.” *Fortuna*v. *Fortuna,*103 N. H. 547, 548.

The record in this case falls short of meeting this requirement. The minor child of the parties will not become of age until July 1962. While the finding of the master shows that he graduated from high school in 1960, there was no finding that he had become self-supporting. The evidence in the case is not before us. It may have appeared that “the libelee [had] not been diligent in instituting and prosecuting his petition” *(Eaton*v. *Eaton, supra,*9) or that the circumstances of the parties did not warrant vacation of the order until all sums due at the time of hearing should be paid. See *Fortuna*v. *Fortuna, supra,*548. The record discloses no reason for this court to interfere with the Trial Court’s exercise of its discretion.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
§ 153.350 Risk adjustment data validation standards. ( a ) *General requirement.* The State, or HHS on behalf of the State, must ensure proper implementation of any risk adjustment software and ensure proper validation of a statistically valid sample of risk adjustment data from each issuer that offers at least one risk adjustment covered plan in that State.
( b ) *Adjustment to plan average actuarial risk.* The State, or HHS on behalf of the State, may adjust the plan average actuarial risk for a risk adjustment covered plan based on errors discovered with respect to implementation of risk adjustment software or as a result of data validation conducted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Adjustment to charges and payments.* The State, or HHS on behalf of the State, may adjust charges and payments to all risk adjustment covered plan issuers based on the adjustments calculated in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) *Appeals.* The State, or HHS on behalf of the State, must provide an administrative process to appeal findings with respect to the implementation of risk adjustment software or data validation.