alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:

                  Second Quarter 2005 and 2006



(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)





                                                   Second Quarter 2005



Type of housing unit

                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West

                                           States     east      West



All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100



    Year-round vacant....................      9.7       7.7       9.2      11.9       8.1

      For rent...........................      3.0       2.0       3.4       3.4       2.7

      For sale only......................      1.1       0.8       1.3       1.3       0.8

      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.9       0.8       0.9       0.8

      Held off market....................      4.7       3.9       3.6       6.2       3.8

        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.1       0.7       2.1       1.9

        Temporarily occupied by persons

        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.9       0.9       0.8       1.1       0.7

        For other reasons................      2.2       2.0       2.1       3.0       1.2



    Seasonal vacant......................      3.2       4.4       3.1       2.9       2.6



    Occupied.............................     87.2      87.9      87.7      85.2      89.2







                                                   Second Quarter 2006





                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West

                                           States     east      West



All housing units........................       100       100       100       100       100



    Year-round vacant....................      9.8       8.0       9.5      11.9       8.2

      For rent...........................      2.9       2.3       3.6       3.2       2.3

      For sale only......................      1.4       1.0       1.5       1.6       1.2

      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.8       0.9       1.1       0.9

      Held off market....................      4.6       4.0       3.5       6.0       3.8

        For occasional use...............      1.5       0.9       0.8       2.0       1.7

        Temporarily occupied by persons

        with usual residence elsewhere...      1.0       1.0       0.8       1.2       0.7

        For other reasons................      2.2       2.2       1.9       2.8       1.4



    Seasonal vacant......................      3.2       4.1       2.6       3.1       3.0



    Occupied.............................     87.0      87.8      87.8      85.1      88.8
Table B-2. Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages for Characteristics of Vacant Rental
           and Homeowner Housing Units:  1996


                                    Estimated percentage

                               1 or     2 or     5 or    10 or    15 or    20 or    25 or
                                 99       98       95       90       85       80       75       50


Vacant rental units........     0.1      0.2      0.3      0.4      0.5      0.6      0.6      0.7
Vacant homeowner units.....     0.2      0.3      0.5      0.6      0.8      0.8      0.9      1.1
### Latest version of O3 NPR Lydia Wegman to: dmancini, hking 12/29/2009 09:32 AM Cc: Gina McCarthy, Karen Martin Bcc: Tricia Crabtree

Dom and Heidi,

I hope you both had, or are continuing to have, a good holiday break.

I'm sending along a revised version of the ozone package that reflects a few more changes from the package I sent the week before last. The key change from that version is a rewrite of the two sentences on page 23 that discuss the history of the March 2008 review of the secondary standard. There is also a related change on page 307. This package is a redline compared to the October 20 draft proposed rule, so there are several other changes as well which I previously sent to Heidi the week before last. Please let me know if you have any questions. Lydia
08/04/2010 15:49 FAX 9102438992 000 1 

UNCLASSIFIED 

DEPARTMJENT OF DEFENSE 

AVIATION TACTICS EVALUATION GROUP 

FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28307-5000 

4 Aug 2010 

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA OFFICE OF RULEMAKING 

FROM: AVTEG AIRSPACE ;5; 

SUBJECT; Extension and Aiiport addition to FAA Exemption 9294 

1, On behalf of the United States Special Operations Command, I request extension of FAA 

Exemption No. 9294. This exemption is scheduled to expire on Feb 28 2011. Grant of r-j 

exemption No. 9294 pertains to 105.17, 105.19 (a) and (b), Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations. ,^5 

The exemption allows for parachute operations with no ill\miination, through clouds, outside of 

special use airspace, at and below 1,500' above ground level, at specified airports. I also request 

that Warner Robbins AFB and Moody AFB Georgia be added to exemption No. 9294. 

2. Please direct any questions to MSgt Chad McBee at (910) 243-1340 

'A/<0-

CHAD W. McBEE, MSgt, USAF 

NCOIC Combat Airspace Management 

UNCLASSIFIED
#### Fred GENTILE, Appellant, v. Frank ABADESSA and Dorothy Abadessa, Appellees.

No. 71-536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1972.

*345Henry G. Carratt, of Morgan Carratt & O’Connor, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Norman D. Tripp, of Tripp & Niles, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant, Fred Gentile, suffered a summary final judgment in his suit for damages allegedly caused by defendants’ breach of a contract to purchase certain real property from appellant.

Gentile was constructing a duplex on certain property owned by him. Appellees contacted him and expressed an interest in purchasing the property when the improvement was completed. Following some negotiations, appellees had their attorney prepare a written contract to purchase the property, which contract appellees signed and left with the attorney. Gentile thereafter came to the attorney’s office, read the contract, deleted a paragraph which required him to have the lot treated for termites and pests, and then executed the document. Sometime later, the parties were ready to close the transaction when they learned that under applicable municipal zoning, the building could not be used for purposes contemplated by the appellees. Ap-pellees then refused to close the transaction, which refusal brought about the present suit.

The trial court, finding that the written agreement had been modified by Gentile without the appellees’ knowledge or consent, held that the agreement thereby became merely a counter-offer which appel-lees had not accepted, and therefore the appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The trouble is that the court made a factual finding on a disputed material issue. Gentile stated on deposition that at the time the contract was prepared the construction had already progressed beyond the point where the soil beneath the building could be treated, and that appellees, upon being informed of that fact, had agreed to deletion of the termite provision. Appellee, Frank Abadessa, admitted on deposition that he had been aware of the fact that Gentile had deleted the termite provision before signing the contract, but Abadessa stated that he had not consented to the deletion. Whatever the truth of the matter, a genuine issue was presented on a material fact, i. e., whether appellees had either consented to, or acquiesced in, or ratified this modification of the purchase contract. That issue was improperly decided on summary judgment. Durkin v. Morgan, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 231.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
LYDIA ANN RUSH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

____________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4631 and 1D15-4791

 (Consolidated)

Opinion filed August 12, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

William F. Stone, Judge.

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Lydia Ann Rush appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her 

probation and imposing a prison sentence following the court’s finding that she 

willfully and substantially violated a condition of her probation. Appellant argues that 

the evidence does not support a finding that her violation was willful, and the record 
2

supports her argument. Furthermore, the State concedes error. See State v. Carter, 835 

So. 2d 259, 261 (Fla. 2002) (“Trial courts must consider each violation on a case-bycase basis for a determination of whether, under the facts and circumstances, a 

particular violation is willful and substantial and is supported by the greater weight of 

the evidence.”); Van Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) 

(“Where a probationer makes reasonable efforts to comply with a condition of 

probation, violation of the condition cannot be deemed ‘willful.’”). Accordingly, we 

reverse and remand for Appellant’s probation to be reinstated. 

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Joe DeLUCA, Appellant, v. BARRY & ASSOCIATES, d/b/a O’Brien Motors, Appellee.

No. 73-646.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Wilkin Leroy GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1419.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Aug. 2, 1968.

*9Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and William B. Barnett, Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WALDEN, Chief Judge.

Wilkin Leroy Gibson appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One (now Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A.). The only point here asserted is that,

> “[t]he trial court erred in summarily denying defendant’s motion alleging that his plea of guilty was coerced since such an allegation per se demands an eviden-tiary hearing.”

Defendant argues that a naked assertion that his guilty plea was coerced will automatically entitle him to an evidentiary hearing unless “the records and files in the case * * * do not conclusively show that the guilty plea was not coerced. * * ” We cannot agree with this backward contention and do, therefore, affirm the trial court decision.

 A motion for post-conviction relief should not be scrutinized for technical niceties. However, it is necessary that any contentions be supported by allegations of fact and not be stated as mere conclusions. Swindle v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 132; Crusoe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 600. Petitioner has failed to allege the ultimate facts which support his conclusion that he was coerced into pleading guilty. Thus, the allegation is not sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Lee v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 245; Tolar v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 1.

There is an alternate reason why the trial court was correct in summarily denying the motion. Petitioner is presently serving five concurrent five-year sentences ; yet by his motion he seeks to vacate only one of them. Since he has failed to challenge the validity of the other concurrent sentences, he is not entitled to a hearing on the validity of the challenged sentence. Yates v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 340; Cole v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 923.

Affirmed.

McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Notices]               
[Page 16226]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-154]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6937]

 
Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Government of Libya

    Pursuant to section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, 
Pub. L. 111-117) (``the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of 
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the 
national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of 
section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with respect to the Government of Libya, 
and I hereby waive such restriction.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 22, 2010.
Jacob J. Lew,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2010-7222 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
```
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  First Quarter 1999 and 1999


                              First      First    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                                 1999       1998  1999 rate difference

United States..............      66.7       65.9        0.2        0.2

    Less than 25 years.....      18.4       17.5        0.6        0.8
    25 to 29 years.........      36.6       36.4        0.6        0.9
    30 to 34 years.........      53.5       52.8        0.6        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      64.1       62.4        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      69.7       69.4        0.5        0.7
    45 to 49 years.........      74.4       74.1        0.5        0.7
    50 to 54 years.........      78.3       78.0        0.5        0.7
    55 to 59 years.........      80.9       79.0        0.6        0.8
    60 to 64 years.........      81.4       81.8        0.6        0.8
    65 to 69 years.........      83.2       81.8        0.6        0.8
    70 to 74 years.........      82.1       82.9        0.6        0.9
    75 years and over......      76.6       75.6        0.5        0.7

      Less than 35 years...      39.4       39.0        0.4        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      67.0       65.9        0.4        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      76.2       75.9        0.4        0.5
      55 to 64 years.......      81.1       80.3        0.4        0.6
      65 years and over....      79.8       79.1        0.3        0.5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             633
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                       226
<INVENTORY>                                     12,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,250
<PP&E>                                          61,054
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,492
<SALES>                                         84,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,275
<CGS>                                           18,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   226
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,442
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,906)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,906)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.76)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1536 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1536

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 include in any proposed rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions and 
imposes increased costs on other Federal agencies an offset from funds 
 available to the Administrator for all projected increased costs that 
       the proposed rule would impose on other Federal agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2013

   Mr. Flake (for himself, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Heller, and Mr. McCain) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 include in any proposed rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions and 
imposes increased costs on other Federal agencies an offset from funds 
 available to the Administrator for all projected increased costs that 
       the proposed rule would impose on other Federal agencies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Agency PAYGO Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. OFFSETS FOR INCREASED COSTS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR REGULATIONS 
              LIMITING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

    (a) In General.--If the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes a rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions 
and imposes increased costs on one or more other Federal agencies, the 
Administrator shall include in the proposed rule an offset from funds 
available to the Administrator for all projected increased costs that 
the proposed rule would impose on other Federal agencies.
    (b) No Offsets.--If the Administrator proposes a rule that limits 
greenhouse gas emissions and imposes increased costs on one or more 
other Federal agencies but does not provide an offset in accordance 
with paragraph (1), the Administrator may not finalize the rule until 
the promulgation of the final rule is approved by law.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.27.9    AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR OFFICERS OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM COMPANIES   The Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for Officers of Northeast Utilities System Companies, as amended, is further amended, effective January 1, 1992, as follows:  Paragraph 2 of Article VII of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:  The normal form in which a Target Benefit shall be paid is, for a Participant who is unmarried on the date on which benefit payments are to commence as determined above, monthly payments on the first day of each month for the life of the Participant only, and for a Participant who is married at such time, monthly payments on the first day of each month for the life of the Participant and after the Participant's death, monthly payments on the first day of each month to the Participant's surviving spouse for life, each in an amount equal to 50 percent of the Participant's monthly payment. To be entitled to a Target Benefit under the Plan, a spouse must be married to the Participant both on the date Target Benefit payments to the Participant commence and on the Participant's date of death (hereinafter referred to as a "Surviving Spouse").  The annual Target Benefit payable to a married Participant, while living, shall be equal to the annual Target Benefit that would be payable to such Participant if unmarried.
#### Ewing Garrett WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-349.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 10, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Dominick J. Salfi, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  Second Quarter 2002 and 2001

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    Second    Second   Standard
                                   quarter   quarter   error on  Standard     2002
Type                                 2002      2001      2002    error on   Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate difference  of total

All housing units.................  122,955   121,615       214        315       100

  Occupied........................  108,380   106,765       226        332        88
    Owner occupied................   73,251    72,252       228        334        60
    Renter occupied...............   35,129    34,513       185        270        29

  Vacant..........................   14,575    14,850       127        187        12
    Year-round vacant.............   11,092    11,084       112        164         9
      For rent....................    3,297     3,175        63         91         3
      For sale only...............    1,277     1,300        39         58         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........      939     1,024        34         50         1
      Held off market.............    5,579     5,585        81        119         5
        For occasional use........    1,840     1,893        47         69         1
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.      992     1,072        35         52         1
        For other reasons.........    2,747     2,620        57         83         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,483     3,766        64         96         3
Slip Op. 01-10 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________________ : FAG (U.K.) LTD., THE BARDEN CORPORATION : (U.K.) LTD., THE BARDEN CORPORATION, : FAG BEARINGS CORPORATION, RHP BEARINGS : LTD., NSK BEARINGS EUROPE LTD., : AND NSK CORPORATION, : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Consolidated Court : No. 97-01-00063-S1 UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, : : Defendant-Intervenor. : ________________________________________________: J U D G M E N T This Court having received and reviewed the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, FAG (U.K). Ltd., The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., The Barden Corporation, FAG Bearings Corporation, RHP Bearings Ltd., NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. and NSK Corporation v. United States , 22 CIT ___, 24 F. Supp. 2d 297 (1998) (“Remand Results”), and Commerce having complied with the Court’s remand and no responses to the Remand Results having been submitted by the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on December 15, 1998, are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

__________________________________________ NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge Dated: January 30, 2001 New York, New York