alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §12605. Presentation of United States flag: members transferred from an active status or discharged after completion of eligibility for retired pay

(a) Presentation of Flag.—Upon the transfer from an active status or discharge of a Reserve who has completed the years of service required for eligibility for retired pay under chapter 1223 of this title, the Secretary concerned shall present a United States flag to the member.

(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.—A member is not eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the member has previously been presented a flag under this section or any provision of law providing for the presentation of a United States flag incident to release from active service for retirement.

(c) No Cost to Recipient.—The presentation of a flag under this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.

(Added Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title VI, §652(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 664.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title VI, §652(d), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 665, provided that: "Section 12605 of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), section 213 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 214] (as added by subsection (b)), and section 25 of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948 [33 U.S.C. 853v] (as added by subsection (c)) shall apply with respect to releases from service described in those sections on or after October 1, 1999."
# .,. ECSILLC

Engineers • Consultants • Scientists • International

October14, 2015 Brittany Newton U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Airmen and Airspace Rules Division 800 Independence Ave. , SW Washington, DC 20591 336 Town Mountain Road, Suite 4 Pikeville, Kentucky 41501 606.432.2443 www.engrservices.com

Re: Docket No. FAA-2015-2805, Exemption Request Under Section 333 ofthe FAA Reform Act and Part 11 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations Dear Ms. Newton: Thank you for the review of, and reply to, our Petition for Exemption. Attached please find the originally submittedpetition with the addition ofcomments concerningjustification for the request on the basis ofhow it would be in the public interest to grant such petition (addressing §11.81(d)). The added portion is found in Section 3d ofthe attached, revised letter. If, upon review ofthis revised petition, you have additional comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.



# tJ)tlu **~** sti

· c elY. A y W llis, PE Senior Vice President ECSI, LLC

attachment
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1205 

CELERITY, INC., 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, 

v. 

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS AND SERVICE, INC., 

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant, 

and 

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

 Keith L. Slenkovich, Thelen LLP, of San Jose, California, argued for 

plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Robert E. Camors, Jr., 

Christopher L. Ogden, Karin M. Frenza, and Tomomi K. Harkey. 

 

Paul J. Andre, King & Spalding LLP, of Redwood Shores, California, argued for 

defendant/counterclaimant-appellant and defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were 

Lisa Kobialka and Amy Sun. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

Judge Maxine M. Chesney 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2008-1205 

CELERITY, INC., 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim DefendantAppellee, 

v. 

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS AND SERVICE, INC., 

Defendant/CounterclaimantAppellant, 

and 

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California 

in CASE NO(S). 05-CV-4374 and 05-CV-3560 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (GAJARSA, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED: October 9, 2008 / s /Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
#### § 170.404 Can Tribes use transportation planning funds for other activities?

Yes. After completion of a Tribe's annual planning activities, unexpended planning funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 202(c) may be used on eligible projects or activities provided that they are identified on a FHWA-approved TTPTIP.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08511]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Florida 
Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene at 1:30 
p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2014. 
The meeting will be held at the Disability Rights Florida, 2728 
Centerview Drive, Suite 102, Tallahassee, 32301. The purpose of the 
meeting is for the Committee to plan its human trafficking project.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. 
Comments must be received in the regional office by May 29, 2014. 
Comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA, 30303. 
They may also be faxed to the Committee at (404) 562-7005 or emailed to 
Peter Minarik at pminarik@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional 
information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Southern 
Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled 
date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Southern Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Chicago, IL, April 10, 2014.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2014-08511 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Parole Commission

          - [5 U.S.C. Section 552b]

# AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.

# DATE AND TIME:

10 a.m., Thursday, February 17, 2011.

# PLACE:

U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. 

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS CONSIDERED:

The following matter will be considered during the closed meeting: Discussion of an original jurisdiction case pursuant to 28 CFR 2.17.

# AGENCY CONTACT:

Patricia W. Moore, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5933.

Dated: February 15, 2011,

Rockne Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 2011-3902 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
### SUBCHAPTER I—DEFINITIONS RELATING TO DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM GENERALLY

Sec.
3001.
Defense acquisition system; element of the defense acquisition system.
3002.
Federal Acquisition Regulation.
3003.
[Reserved].
3004.
Head of an agency.
3005.
[Reserved].
3006.
Acquisition workforce.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(i)(1)(A), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2140, amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1806(a)(1), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4151, which added this analysis, by substituting "[Reserved]" for "Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement" in item 3003 and for "Service chief concerned" in item 3005.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN:_______________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45251

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ZACHARY ADDISON NAVRATIL

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 397 A

Filed: April 2, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

AMENDED OPINION

THE COURT’S PRIOR OPINION DATED MARCH 22, 2018,

IS HEREBY AMENDED

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff , District Judge.

Order revoking probation, affirmed

.

Er ic D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Zachary Addison Navratil pled guilty to burglary , Idaho Code § 18

- 1401 . The district

court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three

years
, but after a period of retained jurisdiction , suspended the sentence and placed Navratil on

probation. Subsequently, Navratil admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the

district cou rt consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence

.2 Navratil appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in declining to retain

jurisdiction a second time.

The primary purpose of the retained jurisdi ction program is to enable the trial court to

obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for

probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction.

State v. Chapel , 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565,

567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s

refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient informa tion upon which to

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe , 113 Idaho

977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill , 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based

upon the information that was before the di strict court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the

district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction a second time in

this case.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we canno t

say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in declining to

retain jurisdiction . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Navratil ’s

previously suspended sentence is affirmed.
### 2. Control No. 1. Owner's Name
THIS INFORMATIONREQUEST ISAUTHORIZEDBY LAW. WHILEYOU ARE NOT REQUIREDTO RESPOND, YOUR COOPERATION IS NEEDEDTO MAKETHE RESULTS OF THIS INVESTIGATION VALID. 3.


### 4. 5. 6. '1. 8.


### 9. Do you own/lease a vehicle with the vehicle identification number (VIN) 

### ? _yes _no If so, list the Make , ModelCurrent odometer reading miles. Are you the original owner/lessee? 

## - yes 

## - no Isyour vehicle

## - automatic
- manual Are you interested in participating in this program?



## - need more information. _yes _no Maywe contact you at your convenience: Home Phone: ( ) 

# - Besttime to call: a.m.

Work Phone: ( )

- Besttime to call: a.m. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. PLEASE CALL USTOLL FREE AT (866)665-1228. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PLAN TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE RETURN THIS CARD IN THE POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE. p.m. ' p.m.

OMB No. 2060-0086 Form Approved OMS No. 158-R0146
#### § 15.3 Staff assistance.

The staff of the Office of the Federal Register shall provide informal assistance and advice to officials of the various agencies with respect to general or specific programs of regulatory drafting, procedures, and promulgation practices.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Haynes, Appellant.

[827 NYS2d 713]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), rendered May 31, 2005, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In October 1998, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree and was sentenced to a jail term of six months and a five-year period of probation. The facts relevant to this appeal reveal that, in November 2000, a declaration of delinquency was filed against defendant. A hearing on that declaration was held in January 2003, ultimately resulting in an order extending his period of probation two years and 70 days. In May 2005, following the filing of additional declarations of delinquency, defendant admitted to a willful violation of the terms of his original probation, was sentenced to a jail term of one year and released for time served. Defendant now appeals claiming that his period of probation expired in October 2003 and that it was illegally extended to December 2005, requiring *1129reversal of the May 2005 judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to a prison term of one year. We affirm.

Defendant’s period of probation was interrupted from the date of the declaration of delinquency (November 17, 2000) to the date of the final determination as to the delinquency (January 27, 2003), a period of two years and 70 days *(see*Penal Law § 65.15 [2]; *People v Douglas,*254 AD2d 300, 301 [1998], *affd*94 NY2d 807 [1999]; *People v Shabazz,*12 AD3d 782, 783 [2004]), and we find no other reason to disturb the judgment.

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
### Core tests, Simpson area, Alaska, with a section on temperature measurement studies

By: F. M. RobinsonM.C. Brewer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp305L

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 170.703 What program reviews do the Secretaries conduct? ( a ) In accordance with title 23, the national business plan, 2 CFR part 200, and the Program Agreement or other appropriate agreements, BIADOT and FHWA shall conduct formal program reviews of BIA Regional Offices or Tribes to examine program procedures and identify improvements. For a BIA Regional Office review, the regional Tribes will be notified of these formal program reviews. Tribes may send representatives to these meetings at their own expense.
( b ) The review will provide recommendations to improve the program, processes and controls of management, planning, design, construction, financial and administration activities.
( c ) After the review, the review team shall: ( 1 ) Make a brief oral report of findings and recommendations to the Tribal leadership or BIA Regional Director; and
( 2 ) Within 60 days, provide a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Tribe, BIA, all participants, and affected Tribal governments and organizations.
Filed 2/23/06 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2006 ND 43

Dana Causer, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20050389

Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable John C. McClintock, Jr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Dana Causer (on brief), pro se, James River Correctional Center, 2521 Circle Dr., Jamestown, N.D. 58401, petitioner and appellant.

Lonnie Olson (on brief), State’s Attorney, 524 4th Avenue Northeast, Unit 16, Devils Lake, N.D. 58301, for respondent and appellee.

Causer v. State

No. 20050389

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Dana Causer appealed from a district court “Order Denying Application for Post-Conviction Relief” and an “Order Denying Motions.”  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (7) and State v. Causer, 2004 ND 75, 678 N.W.2d 552.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00024

- CV

FFGGP, INC., as trustee of the Windward Trace 9131 Land Trust, Appellant

v.

MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP
, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, and U.S. Bank

National Association, as trustee of TIKI Series IV Trust,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar Co unty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 02266 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On January 1 8 , 2022, this court granted appellees ’ motion for substitution of counsel. On January 24, 2021, appellees filed a joint motion to withdraw motion for substitution of counsel and motion to vacate order granting motion for substitution of counsel. The motion is
GRANTED , and we withdraw our prior order dated January 18, 2022.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenz uela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 24th day of January, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHA EL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
§ 171.415 Can I place an obstruction on a BIA irrigation project? No. You may not place obstructions on BIA irrigation projects. ( a ) If you do so, we will notify you in writing that you must remove it.
( b ) If you do not remove your obstruction in compliance with our notice, we will remove it and we will bill you for our costs.
( c ) We can remove your obstruction without notice because of an urgency we have identified.
§ 103.6 To what extent will BIA guarantee or insure a loan? ( a ) BIA can guarantee up to 90 percent of the unpaid principal and accrued interest due on a loan.
( b ) BIA can insure up to the lesser of: ( 1 ) 90 percent of the unpaid principal and accrued interest due on a loan; or
( 2 ) 15 percent of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of all loans the lender has insured under the Program as of the date the lender makes a claim under its insurance coverage.
( c ) BIA's guaranty certificate or loan insurance agreement should reflect the lowest guaranty or insurance percentage rate that satisfies the lender's risk management requirements.
( d ) Absent exceptional circumstances, BIA will allow no more than: ( 1 ) Two simultaneous guarantees under the Program covering outstanding loans from the same lender to the same borrower; or
( 2 ) One loan guaranty under the Program when the lender simultaneously has one or more outstanding loans insured under the Program to the same borrower.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 168 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 27, 1999.
Whereas the modern Foreign Service of the United States was established 75 years 
        ago on May 24, 1924, with the enactment of the Rogers Act, Public Law 
        135 of the 68th Congress;
Whereas today some 10,300 men and women serve in the Foreign Service at home and 
        abroad;
Whereas the diplomatic, consular, communications, trade, development, 
        administrative, security, and other functions the men and women of the 
        Foreign Service of the United States perform are crucial to the United 
        States national interest;
Whereas the men and women of the Foreign Service of the United States, as well 
        as their families, are constantly exposed to danger, even in times of 
        peace, and many have died in the service of their country; and
Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the dedication of the men and women of 
        the Foreign Service of the United States and, in particular, to honor 
        those who made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting the interests of 
        the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the Foreign Service of the United States and its 
        achievements and contributions of the past 75 years;
            (2) honors those members of the Foreign Service of the United States 
        who have given their lives in the line of duty; and
            (3) commends the generations of men and women who have served or are 
        presently serving in the Foreign Service for their vital service to the 
        Nation.
    Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit a copy of 
this resolution to the President of the United States.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```