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

# Acting Assistant Secretary Judith Garber Travels to Honolulu, Hawaii

By Office of the Spokesperson

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More Articles/News
###### Editorial Note on Part 23

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

#### § 23.138 What are the rights to information about adoptees' Tribal affiliations?

Upon application by an Indian who has reached age 18 who was the subject of an adoptive placement, the court that entered the final decree of adoption must inform such individual of the Tribal affiliations, if any, of the individual's biological parents and provide such other information necessary to protect any rights, which may include Tribal membership, resulting from the individual's Tribal relationship.
#### § 173.23 Organized tribes.

Concessions and leases on tribal lands withdrawn or reserved for the purposes specified in the act of April 4, 1938 (52 Stat. 193) and dealt with in this part, of any Indian tribe organized under section 16 of the act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 476) for which the tribe has not been compensated shall be made by the organized tribe pursuant to its constitution or charter: *Provided,* No lease or concession so made shall be inconsistent with the primary purpose for which the lands were reserved or withdrawn.
§ 103.17 Must the lender follow any special procedures to close the loan? ( a ) BIA officials or their representatives may attend the closing of any loan or loan modification that BIA agrees to guarantee or insure. For guaranteed loans, and insured loans that BIA must individually review under this part, the lender must give BIA notice of the date of closing at least 5 business days before closing occurs.
( b ) At or prior to closing, the lender must obtain appropriate, satisfactory title and/or lien searches for each asset to be used as loan collateral.
( c ) At or prior to closing, the lender must obtain recent appraisals for all real property and improvements to be used as collateral for the loan, to the extent required by law.
( d ) At or prior to closing, the lender must document that the lender and borrower have complied with all applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws implicated by financing the borrower's business, for example by securing: ( 1 ) Copies of all permits and licenses required to operate the borrower's business;
( 2 ) Environmental studies required for construction and/or business operations under NEPA and other environmental laws;
( 3 ) Archeological or historical studies required by law; and
( 4 ) Certification by a registered surveyor or appropriate BIA official indicating that the proposed business will not be located in a special flood hazard area, as defined by applicable law.
( e ) The lender must supply BIA with copies of all final, signed loan closing documents within 30 days following closing. To the extent applicable, loan closing documents must include the following: ( 1 ) Promissory notes;
( 2 ) Security agreements, including pledge and similar agreements, and related financing statements (together with BIA's written approval of any assignment of specific tribal trust assets under § 103.15(l), or of any security interest in an individual Indian money account);
( 3 ) Mortgage instruments or deeds of trust (together with BIA's written approval, if required by 25 U.S.C. 483a, or if the mortgage is of a leasehold interest in tribal trust property);
( 4 ) Guarantees (other than from BIA);
( 5 ) Construction contracts, and plans and specifications;
( 6 ) Leases related to the business (together with BIA's written approval, if required under 25 CFR part 162);
( 7 ) Attorney opinion letters;
( 8 ) Resolutions made by a Tribe or business entity;
( 9 ) Waivers or partial waivers of sovereign immunity; and
( 10 ) Similar instruments designed to document the loan, establish the basis for a security interest in loan collateral, and comply with applicable law.
( f ) Unless BIA indicates otherwise in writing, the lender must close a guaranteed or insured loan within 90 days of any approval provided under § 103.16.
#### Roy L. McCardell, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.

Reargument ordered and case'set down for Monday, January 13, 1908. Present—Woodward, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
# C_2006249EN.01001201.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/12

---

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’)

(Case T-213/06)

(2006/C 249/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Jacquet, J. Schouman and P. Greffe, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2006, Case R 68/2006-1, which refused to register ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2006, Case R 68/2006-1, which refused to register ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

| — | registration of ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for. |
| --- | --- |

—

registration of ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 716)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its mark is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the goods and services applied for to meet the requirements of Council Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
Date: March 20, 2015 

Meeting: Meeting with INGAA 

Rule(s) Discussed: \'J\ ~c'-1\L 

Written Materials? Yes~ 

Name 

~V'Icl ,\ ~n-k 

Tk~~e_,se._ r~ 

21/\A//i ~ 

Organization 

lt-JGAA 

IAJ(;.Af\. --t.rl(g"-® \1'1~~/ .0 flt 

.-

j;::-r,n-

/'" 

f/A-M vr A ~6f;JJ J~ dA 

· ~r f\6ZE>r PtL\N U\ tPA 

! 

I 

Phone Number l 

I 

I Qot..) 'Zib· <;"'100 

"2/J -z 2..{ ~- 5Cf5 $" 

1-u-L--J fJ· Y 7? L 

'-.) 

201 ~ 3L{ 3 _c!cf:t(o 

d-01 - 3~) C[0~/1 

I 

l 

~ -
Dentons US LLP

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

United States

T 703.336.8708

F 703.336.8750

email: Mark.McKinnon@Dentons.com

Salans FMC SNR Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

August 20, 2015

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: FAA-2015-0155 – Amendment to Exemption 11400

To Whom it May Concern:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ("Reform 

Act") and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Contend LLC ("Contend") hereby submits the following 

amendment to its Petition for Exemption 11400 ("the Exemption"). 

The purpose of this amendment is to permit Contend to operate the DJI Inspire 1 UAS

under the same conditions and limitations contained in the Exemption. Contend will revise its 

UAS Operations Manual to include the DJI Inspire 1. If requested, Contend will submit a 

revised copy of the UAS Operations Manual to the Administrator under separate cover pursuant 

to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), as the materials contain confidential commercial and/or proprietary 

information that Contend has not and will not share with others. Additionally, the document

contains operating conditions and procedures that are not generally available to the public and 

are protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. All 

operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

Contend believes that an amendment adding the DJI Inspire 1 to the Exemption is in the

public's interest as it would reduce hazards and emissions associated with the alternate use of

manned aircraft to conduct similar aerial data collection. Like the other UAS operated by 

Contend, the DJI Inspire 1 is light weight and does not carry any flammable fuel, further 

reducing the risk from any potential accident. 
U.S. Department of Transportation

August 20, 2015

Page 2

Salans FMC SNR Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

The FAA has already ruled that the DJI Inspire 1 meets all of the criteria set forth in 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. See, Exemption No. 11254 to 

Upward Aerial; Exemption No. 11659 to Fovea Aero Systems; Exemption No. 11668 to SkyForge Robotics LLC. Accordingly, the requested amendment should be granted.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption seeking the addition of a 

supplementary UAS model that is substantially similar to the one currently authorized for use 

under the Exemption, Contend respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not 

need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

If you have any questions, or need any additional information to process the requested 

amendment to the Exemption, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. 

Very truly yours, 

Mark E. McKinnon

 

Counsel for Contend
#### § 26.27 What kind of Job Placement support services can I expect?

Service office representatives will make the determination of what support services are necessary and to be funded. Examples of job placement support services include, but are not limited to resume preparation, interview techniques, job retention, and related living skills.
# C_2006182EN.01001101.xml

| 4.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4198 — Bayer/Schering)

(2006/C 182/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 May 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4198. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4198. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
154 So.2d 920

#### HOME SPECIALTY PEST CONTROL CO., Inc. v. W. E. McLEOD et al.

1 Div. 89.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1963.

Rehearing Denied July 18, 1963.

Fred F. Smith, Jr., Prichard, for appellant.

Cunningham & Bounds, Mobile, for appellees.

MERRILL, Justice.

Appellees recovered a judgment against appellant for $2100 damages to their home resulting from subterranean termites after appellant had treated the house. A motion for a new trial was overruled and this appeal followed.

Assignment of error 1 charges error in permitting one of appellees to testify as to the cost of long distance telephone calls she made attempting to get the house repaired. Appellant contends that this expense was not a part of the damages sustained because the complaint was based upon damage to timbers in. the building. • ■

 Conceding, without deciding, that this testimony was not admissible, no reversible error appears because the witness had already anwered before there was a statement of the ground of objection. Where the witness has already answered the question, and the court then overrules the objection to the question, the court will not be put in error on appeal in the absence of a motion to exclude the answer. McBee v. McBee, 265 Ala. 414, 91 So.2d 675; Jones v. Lamb, 239 Ala. 225, *194*So. 652.

*336 Assignments 3 and 4 charge error in the refusal of the court to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive and was not supported by the evidence. Appellant argues that one of appellees’ witnesses testified that he could have done the necessary repairs for approximately $850. However, appellee W. E. McLeod, one of the joint owners, testified that he did the repair work himself; that he had built about twenty-five homes; that the cost of materials for the repairs on his house were at least $850; that it took him three weeks to do the work; and that he was assisted by his wife, his two sons and a neighbor. In view of this testimony and the rule that the presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict is strengthened when the trial judge refuses to grant a motion for a new trial, Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110, 130 So.2d 194; Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Sims, 260 Ala. 258, 69 So.2d 449, we cannot say the court committed reversible error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Assignment 7 charges error in the refusal of the court to give defendants’ written charge 3:

> “I Charge you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the limit of liability in this case is the damages proved by the plaintiff by the testimony presented and the damages is not a speculative amount.”

We cannot hold that the court erred to reversal in refusing this charge because “it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury” in the court’s oral charge. Tit. 7, § 273, Code 1940; Beavers v. Boykin, 273 Ala. 413, 142 So.2d 10.

We have considered all the argued assignments of error and find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
Part II, Section A, Item 1/d – Process Description- Manufacturing 

Raw Material CAS # Year 1 Year 3

 Total Liquid kgs 

 

Reactants are charged to R2000 (or K500F) reactor. 

 

 

REACTOR

RECEIVER 

FILTER 

FILLING

(5 gallon pails and 55 gallon drums)

1

3

2
OKLAHOMA 

OEPARTM.EHTOF EHVIRONMENTAI QUAlITY 

STEVEN A. THOMPSON BRAD HENRY OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Executive Dire(tor Governor 

December 12, 2007 

Lafarge Building Materials 


Attn: Ms. Pamela Bennett 


2609N.145th EastAvenue 


Tulsa, OK 74116 


Subject: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Waiver 


, Lafarg~ - Tulsa Cement Plant 


Dear Ms. Bennett: 

The OklahomaDepartm~nt of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) received a BART Waiver request for the 

Lafarge Tulsa Cement Pllmt on December 1, 2006.' . 

The applicable e~ssion rates to use for the Waiver process is the 24-houiaverage: actual erilissions from 

the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modelyd. The 'Walver sU:b~ttal, on page 4-2, 

,indicates the units operated continuously over a single 24-hour period and provides 'soUrce data in 

Appendix A. Review of this dahl indicates that emissions . are based 'on the equipment operating at 

maximum hourly prodilction for a, 24,hour period. Except were safety factors are used (a 25% safety factor 

was used for NO~ Kiln erruss}9ns),modeled emission rates should equate. those as listed in Title V Permit 

No. 98~174-TV. ' , . , ' . . . , 

The following tableprovides a coriiparison Of modeled datato that in the Title V. Additio~l1y, the original 

submittal indiqated .Kiln #l,TJnit EP 14, was cOnStniCted outside theBAR't eligibility tUne-frame. 

According to the Tide '. 

Vpermit it was constnlcted in 1964 which would rriakeit BART eligible. ' " 

," , " 

EU I '. Point,ID NOll:,lb/hr PMlO, lblhr. ,.s02,lblhr 

BART, TY BART 'TV ,,'BART TV 

221 EP04 . 0.089 0.12 3.857 7.,71 0.001 0.01 

222/223 'EP05 ..:.; -­ ' 0.429 0.86 - - 404 EP13 - - 0.557 1.11 -­ -­ 501 EP14 * 360 * 50.3 * 540 

502 EP15 ' 576 360 21.94 50.3 960. 540 

706 EP24 - - 3.402 6.80 

704 

705~ -­ - 0.429 0.86 - - - 0.429 0.86 - - 602 EP17 ' - - 4.607 9.21 - - 1101 EP27 - - 0.375 0.75 - - 1102/1103 EP28 - - 0.321 0.64 -­ -­ * not modeled 

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMACllY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677 

printed on recycled paper with s<:Yy ink 

o 
In order to complete this review, please provide clarificatioll/justification concerning the proposed modeled 

emission rates and the status of Kiln #1 within 30 days. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If 

we may be of further service, please contactPhillipPIeicler (4(5) 702-4100. 

L ..2-,j 

i;relY~

Ph~;'lder' Engineering and Pennits Section Manage< 

AIR QUALITY DIVISION
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-07-01T18:50:46Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-07-01T18:50:48Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-07-01T18:50:48Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="13922">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-07-01T18:50:46Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>, </p>
<p></p>
<div class="ocr"></div>

</div>
</body></html>
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4288

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota.

Adam William Gooder, *

 * [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 3, 1997

 Filed: September 5, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adam William Gooder appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district

court after he pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a bank robbery, in 1

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3. Gooder contends the district court violated Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1) by considering disputed information in setting his

sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range.
-2-

Contrary to Gooder's argument, we believe the district court sufficiently

indicated that it was not going to consider the controverted matters, and that the

seriousness of Gooder's undisputed offense conduct--driving the getaway vehicle--

justified a sentence at the top of the range for the accessory charge. See United States

v. Willis, 559 F.2d 443, 444 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (defendant was aider and

abettor where, after learning of robbery when codefendants ran out of bank and into his

car, he attempted to help them escape; aider and abettor is liable as principal). We note

that Gooder's sentence was within the range anticipated by the plea agreement. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, dissents.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 170.104 Are funds available for consultation, collaboration, and coordination activities? Yes. Funds are available for consultation, collaboration, and coordination activities. To fund consultation, collaboration, and coordination of TTP activities, Tribes may use: ( a ) The Tribes' TTP allocations;
( b ) Tribal Priority Allocation funds;
( c ) Administration for Native Americans funds;
( d ) Economic Development Administration funds;
( e ) United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development funds;
( f ) Community Development Block Grant funds;
( g ) Indian Housing Block Grant funds;
( h ) Indian Health Service Tribal Management Grant funds;
( i ) General funds of the Tribal government; and
( j ) Any other funds available for the purpose of consultation, collaboration, and coordination activities.