alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Minor Boundary Revision at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of boundary revision.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 460l-
9(c)(1), the boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in the State 
of Indiana is modified to include an additional nineteen tracts 
totaling 48.75 acres of land. These tracts are adjacent to the boundary 
of the national lakeshore and are depicted on a map entitled ``Indiana 
Dunes National Lakeshore, Proposed Boundary Adjustment,'' dated October 
2009, and numbered 314/80,013. Eight of the tracts are non-Federal, to 
be acquired by donation. The remaining eleven tracts are Federally 
owned.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Park Service, Chief, Midwest 
Region Land Resources Program Center, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, 
Nebraska 68102, (402) 661-1788. The map depicting the revision is on 
file and available for inspection at this address and at Indiana Dunes 
National Lakeshore, 1100 North Mineral Springs Road, Porter, Indiana 
46304.

DATES: The effective date of this boundary revision is February 28, 
2011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 16 U.S.C. 460l-9(c)(1) provides that, after 
notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the 
Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication 
of notice in the Federal Register. The Committees have been notified of 
this boundary revision. Inclusion of these lands within the national 
lakeshore will enable the National Park Service to better manage and 
protect natural and scenic resources contained thereon.

    Dated: December 10, 2010.
Ernest Quintana,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-4352 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FH-P
# C_2006165EN.01002501.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 May 2006 — Lavagnoli v Commission

(Case T-95/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Staff report - Regularity of the assessment procedure - Carrying on of activities by staff and union representative - Obligation to state reasons - Action for annulment)

(2006/C 165/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luciano Lavagnoli (Berchem, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and H. Krämer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the assessment exercise for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001 as regards the applicant and of the decision adopting the applicant's definitive staff report for that period

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

1

---
### [§2245a. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, §833(b)(1)(A), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2284]

Section, added Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title III, §373(a), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3210, related to limitation on use of operation and maintenance funds for purchase of investment items.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Timothy Fair, Appellant, v James T. Conway, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 706]

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Mark H. Dadd, A.J.—Habeas Corpus). Present—Hurlbutt, *A.P.J.,*Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 538 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 28, 2000.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall 
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. When the reading for 
amendment reaches title VIII, that title shall be considered as read. Points of 
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 
XXI are waived except as follows: page 74, line 19, through page 75, line 4; 
page 84, line 21, through page 96, line 4. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused 
it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic 
vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic 
voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. House Resolution 513 is laid on the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Inicio 
-  Apelaciones 
-  Junta de Apelaciones 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov’s English home page for more information available in English.

# Junta de Apelaciones

**Propósito y procedimientos de la Junta de Apelaciones de PBGC**

PBGC creó la Junta de Apelaciones para que las personas que se vean afectadas adversamente por las determinaciones de PBGC puedan decirle a PBGC las razones específicas por las que piensan que la determinación es incorrecta, para que PBGC pueda corregir cualquier error. Sin embargo, la Junta de Apelaciones no puede proporcionar una mitigación basada en dificultades o en la creencia de que la determinación de PBGC es injusta.  Una decisión de la Junta de Apelaciones es el paso final en el proceso de revisión administrativa de PBGC.

Si bien la abrumadora mayoría de las decisiones de la Junta de Apelaciones implican reclamos de beneficios por parte de los participantes y beneficiarios, la Junta de Apelaciones también decide sobre apelaciones relacionadas con: (1) determinaciones sobre un plan de pensión que no está cubierto por PBGC en la sección 4021 de ERISA; (2) determinaciones de obligaciones adeudadas a PBGC por los patrocinadores del plan y los miembros del grupo controlado bajo las secciones 4062(b), 4063 y 4064 de ERISA; y (3) cualquier otro asunto que se le remita específicamente cuando PBGC determine que es apropiado hacerlo. Vea 29 CFR § 4003.1 (página en inglés).

Una parte afectada puede presentar una apelación después de que PBGC emita su determinación formal. La apelación, o una solicitud de tiempo adicional para presentar una apelación, se debe presentar dentro de los 45 días desde la fecha establecida en la carta de determinación formal. La determinación formal explica el derecho de apelación y debe incluir una copia de la siguiente publicación:

Vea Su derecho de Apelar.

Puede encontrar información adicional sobre cómo presentar una apelación y dónde enviar una apelación o solicitud de extensión, a través del enlace de arriba en "Su derecho a Apelar". Puede encontrar información adicional sobre el proceso de apelaciones en nuestra sección de Preguntas frecuentes de la Junta de Apelaciones (página en inglés).

Tenga en cuenta que una persona afectada por la determinación de PBGC puede actuar en su propio nombre o puede designar a un representante. Sin embargo, si el representante no es un abogado, la Junta de Apelaciones tiene que recibir un poder legal que indique específicamente el alcance de la autoridad de dicho representante.

Los "Reglamentos para la Revisión Administrativa de Decisiones de la Agencia" de PBGC describen los procedimientos que se aplican a la Junta de Apelaciones. Los reglamentos se encuentran en el Título 29, Código de Reglamentos Federales, Parte 4003  (enlace externo en inglés).

Puede encontrar más información sobre las determinaciones de beneficios sobre el derecho a apelar en la página Apelación de Determinaciones Formales.

 

Febrero 26, 2021

Déjenos sus comentarios
#### Lehan K. Tunks et al., appellees, v. Harlan O’Brien, appellant.

240 N. W. 2d 349

Filed April 7, 1976.

No. 40265.

*736Tye, Worlock, Tye, Jacobsen & Orr and John P. Icenogle, for appellant.

David Jorgensen of Nye, Hervert & Jorgensen, for appellees.

Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Per curiam.

Plaintiffs filed an action for forcible detention against the defendant in the county court of Buffalo County. After trial in the county court, judgment was entered for plaintiffs and against defendant. Defendant appealed to the District Court. The bill of exceptions from the county court was filed but was not introduced in evidence. The District Court reviewed the case, considered the bill of exceptions in making his decision, and affirmed the judgment of the county court. Defendant has appealed to this court and there is no properly certified bill of exceptions in accordance with the revised rules of this court, although the county court bill of exceptions is a part of the transcript here.

When a case is tried in the District Court upon the record from a lower tribunal, that record must be certified as the bill of exceptions in accordance with the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1974, before it can be considered on appeal to this court. In the absence *737of a proper bill of exceptions, any assignment of error that requires an examination of evidence cannot prevail on appeal. In such a case, the only question presented to this court is the sufficiency of the pleadings to sustain the judgment of the trial court. State v. Jacobsen, 194 Neb. 105, 230 N. W. 2d 219. That case is controlling here.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCown, J.,

dissenting.

The rule expressed in the majority opinion in this case represents the triumph of rules over reality. I see no reason whatever why this court, on its own motion, could not and should not request the District Court to certify the county court bill of exceptions to this court if the bill includes all the evidence the court considered in making its decision and judgment. To insist upon exact compliance with procedural rules, particularly at a time when a new county court system of appeals to the District Court is in its infancy, elevates form over substance. In this case it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the bill of exceptions from the county court was considered and acted upon as the evidence in the District Court. Nevertheless, because of oversight, or misunderstanding of the changed appellate procedures, it was not formally received in evidence in the District Court and therefore cannot be certified to this court. To deny appellate review under such facts makes a legal mountain out of a procedural molehill. Justice is a fragile thing and can easily be lost in a sea of rules.
J. 

J. 

respondents' motion to dismiss.' Appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion failed, 

however, to provide any argument or additional factual allegations that 

could have served as a basis for meeting the $10,000 jurisdictional 

threshold. 2Consequently, the district court was within its discretion to 

deny appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion, and we therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

Parraguirr 

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

Francis James Johnson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Appellant acknowledges that he received a copy of respondents' 

motion to dismiss and that he did not file a written opposition to the 

motion. 

2Appellant's proper person appeal statement likewise fails to do so. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

16111WEEMMEMIIIIFIENMENINSII .,.,31,7744f5111A7,
158 So.2d 486

#### Ex parte Richard E. WHITSON.

3 Div. 105.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 21, 1963.

Richard E. Whitson, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., for the .'State.

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is an original petition in this court, -making the Warden of Kilby Prison respondent and praying for:

> “DISCHARGE FROM! FURTHER CUSTODY OF THE RESPONDENT”

.and that this court will:

> “* * * ORDER THAT THE CONVICTION OF THE CASE AT BAR BE MADE NULL AND VOID.”

The petition, as it seems to us, alleges that ■a writ of habeas corpus was issued by a ■circuit judge, and that the action of this judge denying relief after hearing constitutes an abuse of discretion.

The proper method of reviewing the circuit judge’s action is by appeal and not by original petition for habeas corpus addressed to this court. Ex parte Smith, 275 Ala. 344, 155 So.2d 297; Ex parte Burton, 275 Ala. 345, 155 So.2d 298; Ex parte Taylor, 275 Ala. 346, 155 So.2d 299; Ex parte Carmack, 275 Ala. 347, 155 So.2d 300; Ex parte Glisson, 275 Ala. 392, 155 So.2d 348.

The state’s motion to strike the petition is due to be granted.

Petition stricken.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
# C_2014164EN.01000701.xml

| 29.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/7

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 164/07)

| Member State | Greece |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Thessaloniki – Limnos – Ikaria |
| Period of validity of the contract | 1 September 2014-31 August 2018 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 61 days after the day of publication of the notice of PSOs |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
  Directorate General for Air Transport
  Air Transport and International Affairs Division
  Section II





  PO Box 70360 |
| 16604 Glyfada – Athens |
| GREECE |
| Tel. +30 2108916149 / 2108916121 |
| Fax +30 2108947132 |
| Internet: www.hcaa.gr |

Member State

Greece

Concerned route

Thessaloniki – Limnos – Ikaria

Period of validity of the contract

1 September 2014-31 August 2018

Deadline for submission of tenders

61 days after the day of publication of the notice of PSOs

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority

Directorate General for Air Transport

Air Transport and International Affairs Division

Section II

PO Box 70360

16604 Glyfada – Athens

GREECE

Tel. +30 2108916149 / 2108916121

Fax +30 2108947132

Internet: www.hcaa.gr

---
Joint Task Force – Red Hill

Defueling Update

As of March 31, 2023

JTF-RH is currently ON PLAN to safely defuel by June 2024.

Working in partnership with the DOH and EPA, we are seeking to optimize the schedule to start defueling earlier.

DoD Repairs Completed

181/253

Start Complete

Number of Validated Repairs 

Submitted to DOH for Review/Approval

Next 90 Days May 2023 June 2023 July 2023

June 5: DOH Open House 

June 6: FTAC1 – Hosted by DOH

June 8: Response Drill

June 9: NEPA

1 Public Comment Period Begins 

June 15: NEPA Public Meeting

June 30: NEPA Public Comment Period Ends

July 13: Response Drill

3

rd Party Quality Validation Completed 

119/253

Start Complete

Joint Task Force – Red Hill

Defueling Dashboard

As of May 2, 2023

Subject to Revision

Dashboard Legend 1

DISF: Defueling Information Sharing Forum

FTAC: Fuel Tank Advisory Committee

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

Defueling Open House

Ke’ehi Lagoon 

Memorial Park, 4 to 7p.m. 

Click on the photo for an 

enlarged PDF version.

The Process of Defueling

JTF-RH is focused on completing repairs, quality 

control tasks, training, response preparation, 

regulatory approvals and operational planning for all 

major milestones. This work will help ensure the 

safe and expeditious defueling of Red Hill. To learn 

more about this process, click the link here. 

Start Complete

Key Events

119/253

May 17: DISF1 Fourth Meeting

May 23-24: Defueling Open House

May 31: Projected DoD Repairs Complete

DOH Conditional Approval

Start Complete

56/253
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00490-CR

ABRAHAM PARRA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2012-DCR-2912- B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 9, 2015
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About PBGC 
-  Budget, Performance & Planning 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Budget, Performance & Planning

## Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2024 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2023 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2021 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2020 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2019 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2018 Congressional Budget Justification

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification

## Strategic Planning and Performance Measures

Annual Performance & Financial Reports

FY 2022 - 2026 Strategic Plan

FY 2025 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2023 Annual Performance Report & FY 2025 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2022 Annual Performance Report & FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2023 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2021 Annual Performance Report FY 2023 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2022 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan

Information Technology FY 2022 – 2026 Strategic Plan

Customer Service Performance Measures

## Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

2021 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Summary & Results

2020 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Summary & Results

2019 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results

2019 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Agency Management Report

2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results

2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Agency Management Report

2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results

2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Agency Management Report

2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results

2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Agency Management Report

March 11, 2024

##           Reports      

Annual Performance & Financial Reports

Budget, Performance & Planning

ERISA 4010 Reports

FOIA Annual & Quarterly Reports

Multiemployer 5-Year Reports

Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) Reports

Projections Reports

Reports Archives

##           Office of Inspector General       

Management's Response to the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress

OIG Audits

OIG Investigative Reports
IV

House Calendar No. 280

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 584

[Report No. 106–874]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and

the Arms Export Control Act to make improvements to certain defense

and security assistance provisions under those Acts, to authorize the

transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 20, 2000

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control

Act to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions under those Acts, to authorize

the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries,

and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac-
2

HRES 584 RH

1 company the bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the Foreign As2 sistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act

3 to make improvements to certain defense and security as4 sistance provisions under those Acts, to authorize the

5 transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries, and

6 for other purposes. All points of order against the con7 ference report and against its consideration are waived.

8 The conference report shall be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 280

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 584

[Report No. 106–874]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4919) to amend

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and theArms Export Control Act to make improvementsto certain defense and security assistance provisions under those Acts, to authorize the transferof naval vessels to certain foreign countries, andfor other purposes.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed