alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8082a. Deputy Chief of Chaplains

The Secretary of the Navy may detail as the Deputy Chief of Chaplains an officer of the Chaplain Corps in the grade of commander or above who is on active duty and who has served on active duty in the Chaplain Corps for at least eight years.

(Added Pub. L. 96–343, §11(a), Sept. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1130, §5142a; amended Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title V, §504(c)(2), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1725; renumbered §8082a, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(a)(2), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 5142a of this title as this section.

1997—Pub. L. 105–85 struck out ", who is not on the retired list," after "who is on active duty".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### The City of New York, Respondent, v. Sophia R. C. Furniss, as Trustee of the Estate of Clementina Furniss under the Will of William P. Furniss, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.
County of El Dorado 

Air Quality Management District 

330 Fair Lane, Placerville Ca 95667 

Tel. 530.621.7501 Fax 530.295.2774 Dave Johnston 

www.edcgov.us/AirQualityManagement Air Pollution Control Officer 

December 27, 2012 

Mr. Alexander Krichevsky 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Negative Declarations for Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG): 

a. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products CTG (EPA 450/2-78-015) 

 b. Solvent Metal Cleaning CTG (EPA 450/2-77-022) 

 c. Graphic Arts - Rotogravure and Flexography CTG (EPA 450/2-78-033). 

Dear Mr. Krichevsky: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan. On December 11, 2012, the El Dorado County Air Quality 

Management District Board of Directors adopted negative declarations finding that there 

are no District sources to which the following CTG documents apply: 

 Guideline Series: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources: Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 

and Products. U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA 450/2-78-015, June 1978. 

 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning. U.S. EPA 

Publication No. EPA 450/2-77-022, November 1977. 

 Guideline Series: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources: Volume VIII: Graphic Arts – Rotogravure and Flexography. 

U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA 450/2-78-033, December 1978. 

Section 182(b)(2) of the Federal Clean Air Act [42 USC Part D] requires states and 

districts in ozone nonattainment areas to revise their SIP to include Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for all source categories for which the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG) document prior to the area’s date of attainment. These negative declarations are 

being submitted in lieu of RACT rules. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102, a notice was published in the County’s two newspapers 

with largest circulation, (the Mt. Democrat on November 7, 2012 and Tahoe Tribune on 

November 9, 2012), providing a minimum 30-day notice of the public hearing which was 

held on December 11, 2012. 

Please forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. If you have any comments 

or questions, please contact me at (530) 621-7571. 

Sincerely, 

Adam Baughman 

Air Quality Engineer 

(sent via e-mail) 

Attachments: 

1. SIP Checklist 

2. Public Notice Evidence 

3. Board Letter / Staff Report 

4. Resolution with Negative Declaration for the Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coating CTG 

5. Resolution with Negative Declaration for the Solvent Cleaning CTG 

6. Resolution with Negative Declaration for the Graphic Arts CTG 

7. Minute Order 

S:\BOARD ITEMS\2012\CTG Neg Dec Adoption 12-11-12\Submittal to CARB\Neg Dec Submittal Letter to CARB.doc
# C_2013080EN.01000801.xml

| 19.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/8

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2013/C 80/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 11.2.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.33890 (11/N) |
| Member State | Greece |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Ανάθεση στον ΕΛ.Γ.Α. της υλοποίησης του προγράμματος κρατικών οικονομικών ενισχύσεων: Μέτρα υπέρ των παραγωγών της χώρας που οι γεωργικές τους εκμεταλλεύσεις ζημιώθηκαν από θεομηνίες (πλημμύρες, κατολισθήσεις) και δυσμενείς καιρικές συνθήκες (ανεμοθύελλες, υπερβολικές βροχοπτώσεις, παγετό) ως αποτέλεσμα δυσμενών καιρικών συνθηκών, κατά τη χρονική περίοδο Ιανουάριος-Δεκέμβριος 2010 |
| Legal basis | Kοινή υπουργική απόφαση (συνημμένη) |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Compensation of damages caused by natural disaster, Adverse weather conditions |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | | Overall budget: EUR 12 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

11.2.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.33890 (11/N)

Member State

Greece

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Ανάθεση στον ΕΛ.Γ.Α. της υλοποίησης του προγράμματος κρατικών οικονομικών ενισχύσεων: Μέτρα υπέρ των παραγωγών της χώρας που οι γεωργικές τους εκμεταλλεύσεις ζημιώθηκαν από θεομηνίες (πλημμύρες, κατολισθήσεις) και δυσμενείς καιρικές συνθήκες (ανεμοθύελλες, υπερβολικές βροχοπτώσεις, παγετό) ως αποτέλεσμα δυσμενών καιρικών συνθηκών, κατά τη χρονική περίοδο Ιανουάριος-Δεκέμβριος 2010

Legal basis

Kοινή υπουργική απόφαση (συνημμένη)

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Compensation of damages caused by natural disaster, Adverse weather conditions

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 12 million

| | Annual budget: EUR 4 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: EUR 4 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2014

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Υπουργείο ΑΑΤ |
| --- |
| Αχαρνών 2 |
| 101 76 Αθήναι/Athens |
| ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE |

Υπουργείο ΑΑΤ

Αχαρνών 2

101 76 Αθήναι/Athens

ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE

| ΕΛ.Γ.Α |
| --- |
| Mεσογείων 45 |
| 115 10 Αθήναι/Athens |
| ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE |

ΕΛ.Γ.Α

Mεσογείων 45

115 10 Αθήναι/Athens

ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# US Pacific Command, US Pacific Fleet Hold Change of Command Ceremonies

By Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jay M. ChuU.S. Pacific Command Public Affairs

                PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News/Articles
#### In the Matter of Joseph C. Fiore, Respondent, v Cheryl A. Fiore, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 902]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Heffernan, J.), dated December 7, 2005, which, after a hearing, determined that the wife committed acts which constituted the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree, granted the petition for an order of protection, and required the wife to enroll in and complete an alcohol treatment program.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court *(see Matter of King v Flowers,*13 AD3d 629 [2004]), and that determination is entitled to great weight on appeal *(see Matter of De La Cruz v Colon,*16 AD3d 496 [2005])” *(Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed,*23 AD3d 562 [2005]). The Family Court properly credited the husband’s testimony and determined by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the wife committed acts which constituted the family offense of aggravated harassment *804in the second degree *(see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.30 [1]).

Furthermore, the Family Court’s requirement that the wife attend an alcohol treatment program was reasonable (Family Ct Act § 842; *Matter of Mitchell v Muhammed,*275 AD2d 783 [2000]; *Matter of Leffingwell v Leffingwell,*86 AD2d 929, 930 [1982]; *Matter of Jane Y. v Joseph Y.,*123 Misc 2d 771, 773 [1984]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM

To: File / Rulemaking Docket 

EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0754 (78 FR 25650, May 19, 2014) 

From: Jeanhee Hong, EPA Region 9, Office of Regional Counsel 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region 9, Rules Office 

Date: June 5, 2014 

Re: Call with SJVUAPCD regarding Moyer Case-by-Case Determinations 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Participants: Jessi 

Fiero, Jeannine Tackett. 

EPA Region 9 Participants: Jeanhee Hong, Idalia Perez. 

EPA stated that it would draft a summary of this conversation to post on the rulemaking docket for 

EPA’s pending action onRule 9610 (Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0754). EPA asked whether 

the District’s incentive project database currently track Moyer Case-by-Case determinations. The 

Districtstated that the database currently does not track these but that they will correct thisin the future. 

Additionally, the District stated that the 2014 Annual Demonstration Report will include a section 

identifying projects subject to Case-by-Case determinations (and associated emission reductions) that 

have been removed from the report and the electronic “Data Sheet.” EPA asked whether Case-by-Case 

determinations are subject to public process and the District stated that the Carl Moyer guidelines are 

but the individual Case-by-Case determinations are not. EPA also asked about the timing ofsubmission 

ofthe 2014 DemonstrationReport. The District indicated that they intend to present it to their Governing 

Board at the August Governing Board hearing.
1

Perez, Idalia

From: Perez, Idalia

Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 9:39 AM

To: 'Jeannine Tackett'

Cc: Jeanhee Hong

Subject: call to discuss Moyer Case-by-Case

Attachments: SJVComments_EPAPM2 5ContingencyApproval.pdf

Hi JeannineWe briefly mentioned to Samir yesterday that we have a question about case-by-case determinations and he suggested 

that I call you. Are you available for a brief call on Thursday 6/5 at 2:30? 

Attached is the comment letter that the District submitted during the comment period for our action in the contingency 

measure. My question is regarding Section 5, page 3, of the letter. In this section, the District states: 

“EPA is correct that the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report does not include case-by-case determinations...” 

We recently found the following determinations in ARB’s case-by-case database 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/case_by_case/case_by_case.htm): 

Reference ID in ARB website Project IDs 

2011-35 C-7478 and C-7477 

2012-39 C-7859-A and C-8692-A 

2012-42 C-8371 

These projects are agricultural off-road vehicle replacements, which the District relied on for emission reduction credit 

towards the PM2.5 contingency measure SIP. 

We would like to discuss this issue. 

-Idalia 

_____________________

Idalia M. Pérez, Ph.D. 

Rulemaking Office, Air Division 

US EPA (AIR-4) | 75 Hawthorne St. | San Francisco, CA 94105 

P: 415.972.3248 | F: 415.947.3579
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USS Michael Murphy Learns About the Local Culture in Kota Kinabalu

By Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Ryan HarrisUSS Michael Murphy Public Affairs

                KOTA KINABALU, Malaysia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

USS Michael Murphy

pacom

news

articles
W&*dA/£t=&}/

2^tece?>76&e. 0£,^£>/S-

/*4*/* /tLtiAee 1 /2.-/S^SttfeSS&m*'OF APPEALS

12tn Court erf Acpais District

<Z>&?)£ /f0At0£j4<£/& £/&e£l_

deed-to JCw>h/ J$£ C{//?<e£Azr^27?rfc£s

ApaeiQJ. ^7/s zct'^tz://<pe*/eh:/d2 &£ A^^-^ks.Coujer^L

ZZ2ZSC/&J, jZaJ jfPf&rtZ&Al, "_

7/J*d /^/so uj/id ^Acry*/ -zs A/iy A^&&ij4<£rG£d&jJ

aaA ^da/T^bcL 7

dMu^^r^t_

.£JL*0&&&jLl

/, h C 2, -xpm^^^/^^L

-
# C_2017093EN.01016201.xml

| 24.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/162

---

P7_TA(2014)0048

Participation of Greenland in the Kimberley Process certification scheme *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 February 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision laying down rules and procedures to enable the participation of Greenland in the Kimberley Process certification scheme (COM(2013)0429 — C7-0232/2013 — 2013/0201(CNS))

(Special legislative procedure — consultation)

(2017/C 093/32)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2013)0429), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2013)0429),

| — | having regard to Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0232/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0232/2013),

| — | having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0466/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0466/2013),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---
#### Henry G. Brown et al. v. Theodore H. Schintz, Trustee, et al.

1. *Decrees*— Recitals *in, When Conclusive.—*Where, in a proceeding to foreclose two trust deeds, it is recited in the decree that it is agreed in open court between the solicitors for the different parties that certain sums of money, exclusive of costs and solicitor’s fees, are the correct amounts secured by such trust deeds, such recital is'conclusive and can not be contradicted in this court by affidavits filed and not brought to the attention of the court below.

Foreclosure of Trust Deeds. — Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1900.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 26, 1901.

Albion Cate, attorney for plaintiffs in error.

*460Ives, Mason & Wyman, attorneys for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is like that of Thomas Brown et al. v. Schintz, trustee, and Huber and Mann, *supra.*This case, like that one, is for a foreclosure of trust deeds made by the appellants to Schintz, to secure building loans agreed to be advanced as the work progressed on the buildings. Except as to the amounts advanced and secured by the trust deeds, and as to some minor matters, the facts are the same in both cases, and the decree is the same. As to the amount secured by the trust deeds, the decree recites :

> “ It is agreed in open court between Albion Cate, solicitor for the defendants Brown, and Ives, Mason *&*Wyman, solicitors for said defendants Huber and Mann, that the said sums of $1,319.61, exclusive of solicitor’s fees and costs, and $371.13, exclusive of solicitor’s fees and costs, are the correct amounts secured by said trust deeds respectively.”

This recital is conclusive, and can not be contradicted by the affidavit filed and not brought to the attention of the court below. (See Roby v. Title Guarantee and Trust Co., 166 Ill. 336.)

As is well said by appellant’s counsel, “ the contentions in this case are identical with those in Thomas Brown et al. v. Theodore H. Schintz, trustee, et al., *ante;*the record is substantially the same, and the same rules of decision will apply in both cases.”

And the decree is asked to be reversed for the same reasons urged in the Thomas Brown case.

We see no reason for repeating the opinion, and therefore, for the reasons stated in that case, affirm the decree.
§ 166.103 How will tribal laws be enforced on Indian agricultural land? ( a ) Unless prohibited by federal law, we will recognize and comply with tribal laws regulating activities on Indian agricultural land, including tribal laws relating to land use, environmental protection, and historic or cultural preservation.
( b ) While the tribe is primarily responsible for enforcing tribal laws pertaining to Indian agricultural land, we will: ( 1 ) Assist in the enforcement of tribal laws;
( 2 ) Provide notice of tribal laws to persons or entities undertaking activities on Indian agricultural land, under § 166.104(b) of this part; and
( 3 ) Require appropriate federal officials to appear in tribal forums when requested by the tribe, so long as such an appearance would not: ( i ) Be inconsistent with the restrictions on employee testimony set forth at 43 CFR Part 2, Subpart E;
( ii ) Constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States; or
( iii ) Authorize or result in a review of our actions by a tribal court.
( c ) Where the regulations in this subpart are inconsistent with a tribal law, but such regulations cannot be superseded or modified by the tribal law under § 166.2 of this part, we may waive the regulations under part 1 of this title, so long as the waiver does not violate a federal statute or judicial decision or conflict with our general trust responsibility under federal law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          29,659
<SECURITIES>                                   170,030
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                        47
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,518
<PP&E>                                          61,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 294,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,484
<BONDS>                                        258,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   294,816
<SALES>                                          2,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,973
<CGS>                                            6,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (328)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,600)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,731)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Andrew C. Troy, Respondent, v. Edward G. Acheson, Appellant.

Order reversed on argument, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.