alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USS Halsey to Arrive in Subic Bay

By Staff writer

                MANILA, Philippines  –              
USS Halsey (DDG 97), an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, will arrive in Subic Bay today for a routine port call that highlights the strong historic, community and military connections between the Philippines and the United States.  

This visit will allow the ship to replenish supplies as well as give the crew an opportunity for rest and relaxation.  While in Subic Bay, the sailors of USS Halsey are eager to enjoy Olongapo City and strengthen their understanding of a country with historical ties to the United States and the U.S. Navy.

The USS Halsey, named after Fleet Admiral William Frederick "Bull" Halsey, Jr. (1882-1959), is part of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and is homeported at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.  The USS Halsey is commanded by CDR Linda Seymour.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

pacom

news

articles
#### § 173.4 Permits subject to existing and future rights-of-way.

Use by the permittee of any land authorized under this part shall be subject to the right of the Secretary to establish trails, roads and other rights-of-way including improvements thereupon or through the premises, and the right to use same by the public. No interference shall be permitted with the continued use of all existing roads, trails and other rights-of-way and improvements thereon.
Appendix 10.3 

Calculations for Emissions Reductions for Kansas 

Reasonable Progress Goals 
Table A10.3.1 Calculations of NOx and SO2 Reductions from Kansas Sources for Meeting Reasonable Goals 

Facility/Unit Unit Fuel 

2002 

NOx 

(tons) 

2002 

SO2 

(tons) 

2002 heat 

input 

(MMBtu)

Post-control 

NOx rate 

(lb/MMBtu)1

Post-control 

SO2 rate 

(lb/MMBtu)1

Postcontrol 

NOx 

(tons) 

Postcontrol 

SO2 

(tons) 

NOx 

reduction 

(tons) 

SO2 

reduction 

(tons) 

Proposed controls 

Westar- Gordon Evans Unit 1 1 NG/FO 258.7 617.7 1,544,183 0.2745 0.00059 211.9 0.5 46.8 617.2 Natural gas only.2WestarHutchinson Unit 4 

4 NG/FO 267.1 734.3 1,902,245 0.1667 0.00059 158.5 0.6 108.5 733.7 Natural gas only.2

Westar- Jeffrey Unit 3 3 Coal/FO 10,807.4 23,206.0 65,507,710 0.15 0.15 4,913.1 4,913.1 5,894.3 18,292.9 

Wet limestone scrubber rebuild, low 

NOx burner 

system and ESP rebuild. 

WestarLawrence Unit 3 3 Coal/NG 728.4 1,965.4 5,467,803 0.18 --- 1,965.4 728.4 0.0 

Low NOx 

burner 

system and ESP rebuild. 

WestarLawrence Unit 4 4 Coal/NG 1,986.5 1,430.0 11,138,048 0.18 0.15 1,002.4 835.4 984.1 594.7 

Low NOx 

burner 

system, fabric filter 

baghouse 

and wet limestone scrubber rebuild.3

WestarLawrence Unit 5 5 Coal/NG 3,546.3 4,353.7 34,196,132 0.15 0.15 2,564.7 2,564.7 981.6 1,789.0 

Low NOx 

burner 

system, fabric filter 

baghouse 

and wet limestone scrubber rebuild.3
Westar- Murray 

Gill Unit 1 1 NG/FO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2745 0.00059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural gas only.2Westar- Murray Gill Unit 2 2 NG/FO 4.5 0.0 29,035 0.2745 0.00059 4.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Natural gas only.2Westar- Murray Gill Unit 3 3 NG/FO 181.6 452.1 1,082,863 0.2745 0.00059 148.6 0.3 33.0 451.8 Natural gas only.2Westar- Murray Gill Unit 4 4 NG/FO 103.8 333.3 620,470 0.2745 0.00059 85.2 0.2 18.7 333.1 Natural gas only.2Westar- Neosho Unit 7 7 NG/FO 0.0 0.0 220 0.1667 0.00059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural gas only.2WestarTecumseh Unit 7 

7/9 Coal/NG 1,530.6 2,692.7 7,684,021 0.18 --- 691.6 2,692.7 839.0 0.0 

Low NOx 

burner 

system and ESP rebuild. 

WestarTecumseh Unit 8 

8/10 Coal/NG 1,876.9 4,514.9 12,256,920 0.18 --- 1,103.1 4,514.9 773.8 0.0 

Low NOx 

burner 

system and ESP rebuild. 

Totals 10,408.7 22,812.5 

1 For coal-fired units, values are proposed 30-day rolling average excluding periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction; for natural ga or fuel oil (NG/FO) 

fired units, original emission factor in lb/MMscf and converted using 1020 Btu per scf. 

2 Fuel oil firing is allowed in emergencies and during periods of periodic testing of the fuel oil handling and combustion equipment. 3 Existing wet limestone scrubber will be rebuilt as necessary to achieve compliance with the proposed SO2 limitation and to accommodate the installation of a 

fabric filter baghouse. All coal-fired units are tangential boilers.
1The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3832

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Luis Yair Gutierrez-Lopez, * District of Nebraska.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 16, 2001

 Filed: March 21, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Luis Yair Gutierrez-Lopez pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United

States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His sentence was enhanced

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he had previously

been deported after being convicted of an aggravated felony. The district court1

sentenced him to 78 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
-2-

Gutierrez-Lopez argues on appeal that because the fact of a prior aggravatedfelony conviction was not alleged in the indictment and was neither proven to a jury nor

admitted through his guilty plea, the enhanced sentence violates the standards

announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). We reject this

argument because Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226 (1998),

which upheld the validity of the section 1326(b)(2) aggravated-felony enhancement for

section 1326(a) violators, was not overruled by Apprendi. See 120 S. Ct. at 2362;

United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 932 n.4 (8th Cir.) (“In Apprendi, the

Court left Almendarez-Torres untouched, although . . . [it] expressed a willingness to

reconsider it.”), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 600 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
DaveHeineman Governor December

5,2012 Mr. Karl Brooks Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region VII 11201 Renner Blvd. Lenexa, KS 66219 RECEIVED DEC 1 7 2012 AWMD/APDB DEC 6 2012

<:.c: Q..-p.10 **rz.~**

I S7f STATE OF NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Michael
J. Linder Director Suite 400, The Atrium 1200 'N' Street P.O

.Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 8922 Phone (402} 471 2186 FAX (402} 471 2909 website

:www

.deq

.state

.ne.us Re: Negative Declaration for Existing Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI) in Nebraska Dear Mr. Brooks: Pursuant to §60.23 (b) of Title40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the State of Nebraska has no existing Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI) facilities within the state subject to the requirements

of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LLLLStandards
of Performance for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. Therefore the state of Nebraska will not be adopting the regulations and implementation plan required by40 CFR Part 60.5005, Emission Guidelines for States with One orMore SSI Units Constructed
On orBefore October 14, 2010. If youhave any questions, please contact Brian Kozisek of mystaff at (402) 471-6624. Air Quality Division Nebraska Department
of Environmental Quality An Equal OpportunitvA/firmotiueAction Employer Pnnted woth sovink onrecvcled oaoerA
u.s. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JUN· 2 6 2015 

Tim Trott 

3628 Seminole Lane 

Marianna. FL 32448 

Dear Mr. Trott: 

800 Independence Ave .. S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

This is in response to your letter, posted to the public docket (No. FAA-20 15-0263) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate rulemaking to amend 

part 61 ofTitle 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). In your petition. you request 

that the FAA amend 14 CFR § 61 .1 13 to permit commercial operations of unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS) by licensed or certificated pilots. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73. the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking: 

I) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues. 

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the 

guidelines found in § I I. 73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria 

to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the 

proposed rul e change in your petition will be placed in a database. which we will 

examine when we consider future rulemaking. 

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future. you would be able to find 

out and track it through one ofthe two following websites: 

• For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation's (DOT) website (http://www.dol.!!Ov/re!!ulat ions/report-onsiuni ficant-rulemakin!2s ). 

• For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT's semiannual regulatory agenda. through the Office of Management and Budget's 

(OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair's (OIRA) Unified 

Agenda website (http://,vw\v.re!!into.!.!Ov/publi c/do/eAgendaMain). 

2 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14CFR§ 11.73. 

Sincerely, 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service 
'-
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33856]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revised Amount of 
the Average Cost of a Health Insurance Policy

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is 
publishing an updated monetary amount of the average cost of a health 
insurance policy as it relates to the National Vaccine Injury 
Compensation Program (VICP).
    Section 100.2 of the VICP's implementing regulation (42 CFR Part 
100) states that the revised amounts of an average cost of a health 
insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary, are to be published 
periodically in a notice in the Federal Register and filed with the 
United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court). This figure is 
calculated using the most recent Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-
Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) data available as the baseline for the 
average monthly cost of a health insurance policy. This baseline is 
adjusted by the annual percentage increase/decrease obtained from the 
most recent annual Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and 
Educational Trust (KFF/HRET) Employer Health Benefits survey or other 
authoritative source that may be more accurate or appropriate.
    In 2011, MEPS-IC, available at www.meps.ahrq.gov, published the 
annual 2010 average total single premium per enrolled employee at 
private-sector establishments that provide health insurance. The figure 
published was $4,940. This figure is divided by 12-months to determine 
the cost per month of $411.67. The $411.67 shall be increased or 
decreased by the percentage change reported by the most recent KFF/
HRET, available at http://www.kff.org. The percentage increase was 
published at 8 percent. By adding this percentage increase, the 
calculated average monthly cost of a health insurance policy for 12-
month period is $444.60.
    Therefore, the Secretary announces that the revised average cost of 
a health insurance policy under the VICP is $444.60 per month. In 
accordance with Sec.  100.2, the revised amount was effective upon its 
delivery by the Secretary to the Court. Such notice was delivered to 
the Court on November 23, 2011.

    Dated: December 28, 2011.
Mary K. Wakefield,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-33856 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
### **CHAPTER 273—ALLOWABLE COSTS**

Subchapter
Sec.
I.
General
3741
II.
Other Allowable Cost Provisions
3761

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 273 "ALLOWABLE COSTS", as added by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §801(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1828, and consisting of reserved section 3741, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1832(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4217.
[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:****Internal medicine in World WarII**
 
Volumes: One | Two | Three
 
SuDoc:D 104.11:IN 8/V.1-V.3
Item Number:0352-A (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001037020
 
December 6, 2017
156 So.2d 365

#### Ex parte Henry HICKERSON.

3 Div. 95.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 5, 1963.

Henry Hickerson, pro ami.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Peter M. Lind, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GOODWYN, Justice.

This is an original petition for habeas corpus filed here on August 12, 1963, by Henry Hickerson, who is confined in Kilby prison.

It appears from the petition that Hickerson addressed a petition for habeas corpus to a circuit judge of Montgomery County; that said judge denied him relief on said petition; and that an appeal was then taken to the Court of Appeals, which court, on June 28, 1963, affirmed the ruling of the circuit judge.

In addressing his petition to the circuit judge, petitioner followed the proper procedure. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 6. Also, in appealing to the Court of Appeals, petitioner followed the proper procedure for obtaining a review of the circuit judge’s ruling. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 369, as amended by Act No. 60, appvd. June 21, 1955, Acts 1955, Vol. I, p. 294; Ex parte Burton, Ala., 155 So.2d 298, and cases there cited.

The Court of Appeals is a court of last resort. Ex parte Louisville & Nashville R. Company, 176 Ala. 631, 58 So. 315. There are no appeals from that court to the State Supreme Court. The right of appeal is purely statutory; and there is no statute authorizing an appeal from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. We cannot consider the petition as an appeal from the decision of that court.

The decisions of the Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon application for an appropriate remedial writ meeting the requirements of *506Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court. 261 Ala. XIX, XXXIV; Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix, 1955 Cum. Pock.Part, p.- 236; Recompiled Code 1958, Tit. 7, Appendix, p. 1178; Pate v. State, Ala., 154 So.2d 685.1 Even if the petition now before us should be considered as one for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision by a remedial writ, we could not entertain it because there is no indication whatever that the requirements of Rule 39 have been met.

The State’s motion to dismiss the petition ■ is -due to be granted.

Petition dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. Ante, p. 327.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,667
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     73,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               225,112
<PP&E>                                         211,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 586,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          134,542
<BONDS>                                        423,070
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   586,687
<SALES>                                        134,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,093
<CGS>                                          112,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,361)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       739
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 11.713 Small estates.

An estate having an appraised value which does not exceed $2,000.00 and which is to be inherited by a surviving spouse and/or minor children of the deceased may, upon petition of the executor or administrator, and a hearing before the court, be distributed without administration to those entitled thereto, upon which the estate shall be closed.
§ 304.26 Requests for an accounting of record disclosures. ( a ) *How made and addressed.* Except where accountings of disclosures are not required to be kept (as stated in paragraph (b) of this section), you may make a request for an accounting of any disclosure that has been made by the agency to another person, organization, or agency of any record about you. This accounting contains the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure, as well as the name and address of the person, organization, or agency to which the disclosure was made. Your request for an accounting should identify each particular record in question and should be made in writing to the agency, following the procedures in § 304.21.
( b ) *Where accountings are not required.* The agency is not required to provide accountings to you where they relate to: ( 1 ) Disclosures for which accountings are not required to be kept (i.e., disclosures that are made to officers and employees of the agency and disclosures required under the FOIA); or
( 2 ) Disclosures made to law enforcement agencies for authorized law enforcement activities in response to written requests from a duly authorized representative of any such law enforcement agency specifying portion of the record desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought.
( c ) *Appeals.* You may appeal a denial of a request for an accounting in the same manner as a denial of a request for access to records (see § 304.24(a)) and the same procedures will be followed.
Dear

,

EPA is currently developing a new proposal for the management of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals at healthcare facilities . From comments on the EPA’s 2008 EPA’s Proposed Rule: Amendment to the Universal Waste Rule: Addition of

Pharmaceuticals , we realized we needed to learn more about the reverse distribution of pharmaceuticals.

EPA is very interested in any information and data that Inmar can provide about the quantity of pharmaceuticals that are returned to the RD that meet the definition of hazardous wastes. Further, we are interested in the quantity of returned pharmaceuticals

that meet the definition of hazardous waste that also receive credit.

We have attached a list of questions about reverse distribution. EPA would find it helpful if you could provide any answers, explanations or data relating to any of the above and attached questions. Please note you are not required to respond, but any answers will be beneficial to EPA in its development of the new rule for the m anagement of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. If you choose to reply, a response by December 1, 2011, would be appreciated. If this time frame is not feasible, just let us know that you intend to reply, but will require more time.

Any supporting informa tion you provide to EPA will be made publicly available in the docket for the rulemaking, unless the information is claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Therefore, if you submit any information that you claim as CBI, clearly mark all of the information that you claim to be CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Please do not fax any information cla i med as CBI. For additional information on how to submit CBI, contac t LaShan Ha ynes, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery CBI contact, at (703) 605

- 0516, Haynes.LaShan@epa.gov.

Again, we appreciate any assistance you can provide. Please direct any questions or response to this letter to any member of EPA’s ph arms team:

Lisa Lauer, (703) 308

- 87418, Lauer.Lisa@epa.gov Kristin Fitzgerald, (703) 308

- 8286, Fitzgerald.Kristin@epa.gov Jessica Young , (703) 308

- 0026

, Young.Jessica @epa.gov