alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 225.5 Authority and responsibility of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE).

The OSMRE is the regulatory authority for surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.*). The relevant regulations for surface mining and reclamation operations are found in 30 CFR part 750 and 25 CFR part 216. These regulations, as amended, apply to minerals agreements approved under this part.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 665 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      November 3, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 2796) to provide for 
the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to 
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Mark E. Wood, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
# C_2006261EN.01000101.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/1

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2006 — Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-88/03) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Decision 2003/442/EC - Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority - Reductions on the rate of income tax for natural and legal persons having their tax residence in the Azores - Classification as State aid - Selective nature - Justification by the nature and overall structure of the tax system - Obligation to state reasons - Compatibility with the common market)

(2006/C 261/01)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent, and J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Romão, advogados)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. de Sousa Fialho, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (R. Caudwell, Agent, and D. Anderson QC)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

(

)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4487 final in so far as it considers State aid incompatible with the common market the reduction of the rate of income tax for natural and legal persons having their tax residence on the Azores and pursuing certain financial activities (Section J, codes 65, 66 and 67 and Section K, code 74, of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community — NACE REV1.1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.

1

---
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010

__ -NM- 123 -AD

---

YES () explain NO (X) Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? YES () explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Isthe AD significant? YES () explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities? YES ( )explain NO (X) [ntrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation inAlaska. Is it]appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where avialion might be the only mode of transportation? I
[Exhibit 99.3]

                           CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Link Plus Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert L. Jones, Jr., Chairman/CEO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, that:

(1) 	The Report fully complies with Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) 	The Information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and result of operations on
the Company.



By: /s/ Robert L. Jones,
Chairman/CEO
-------------------------------


May 14, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4282]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer; 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-4282 Filed 2-22-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
# C_2006331EN.01002701.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Werners v Council and Commission

(Case T-373/94) (1)

1

(Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1984 producers - Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

(2006/C 331/60)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: R.W. Werners (Meppel, Netherlands) (represented by: initially H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers, and subsequently E. Pijnacker Hordijk)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, Agents, and subsequently A.-M. Colaert,) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially T. van Rijn, Agent, assisted by H.J. Rabe, lawyer, and subsequently T. van Rijn)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for compensation pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the fact that he was prevented from marketing milk in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr R.W. Werners to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr R.W. Werners to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 24.12.1994.

1

---
#### NONA MAYO HOOKS and husband, CURTIS W. HOOKS, ETHEL MAYO SHIREY and husband, LYNWOOD SHIREY, LEONARD MAYO and wife, JULIA R. MAYO, ORA MAE FOWLER (widow), FRED B. MAYO and wife, LOUISE D. MAYO, JANET MAYO PEARSALL (widow) and MARJORIE MAYO CARROLL and husband, WOODROW W. CARROLL, SR. v. DAVID WHITLEY MAYO (single), GEORGE E. MAYO, III and wife, REBECCA COLE MAYO, and GRETCHEN MAYO JORDAN and husband, BEN JORDAN

No. 330A89

(Filed 1 March 1990)

APPEAL by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 94 N.C. App. 657, 381 S.E.2d 197 (1989), reversing an order of summary judgment for defendants entered by *Phillips, J.,*on 7 November 1988 in Superior Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13 February 1990.

*Dees, Smith, Powell, Jarrett, Dees & Jones, by Tommy W. Jarrett, for plaintiff-appellees.*

*Warren, Kerr, Walston & Hollowell, by John H. Kerr, III and John R. Rose, for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### [§7082. Renumbered §8582]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 2194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Nevada)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, February 17, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Thursday, February 17, 2011, at 2 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. 
For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, 
WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 5, 2011.
Shawn F. Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-417 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### Memorandum DATE: Apr1119 , 2016 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D

. C

. 20460

OFFIC E OF CHEMICAl SAfETY AND POLLUTIO N PRE VENT IO N

SUB J ECT : Transm iss io n of cha r ge questions for the peer review of the TSCA Work Plan C he mica l Assessment for 1-B romop ropane (1- BP ) o n May 24-25 , 20 1 6 by the C h emical Safety Advisory Comm ittee ( CSA C) TO:

FROM: Laura B a il ey Executiv e Sec retary F IFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Staff Office of Sc ienc e Coo rdinati o n and Po li cy 

### Ta la Henry , Dir ect or •



# ~

**?!_ J**  Risk Ass es sment



# Di **isio ~C:**  

# /e- c_)
- Offic e of Po lluti o n Pr eve nti o n an d Taxies Tran s mitted with this memo are th e final char g e questions to the C he mical Saf e ty Advi s ory Committee (CSAC) for the p ee r review of the draft risk assessm e nt T SCA Work Pl an Che mical 1 -Bromop ro pane (1- BP). T he CSAC is schedu l ed to review the draft risk a sse ssment on May 24-25 , 2016. Th ese charge qu es tions do not contain any in formation protected b y copyright , protected under statute as Confidential Bu s iness Information ( CBI) or oth e rw ise protected from d isclosu r e to the public. The cha r ge que s tions are attac hed : 

### Document Title 1. 1-Br o moQrop a ne (1 -BP ) fina l p ee r review charge questions ( PD F)
cc: Stan Barone , Deputy Director, Risk Assessm e nt Di v ision A l va Daniels , Se nior Adviso r, Ri sk Assessmen t Di vis ion Jeff Morris , D e puty Office Di rector , Office o f Polluti o n Pre v en ti o n 

### & Taxie s 

### Date 4/18 / 20 1 6
### §9592. Radiograms and telegrams: forwarding charges due connecting commercial facilities

In the operation of telegraph lines, cables, or radio stations, members of the Air Force may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force, collect forwarding charges due connecting commercial telegraph or radio companies for sending radiograms or telegrams over their lines. Under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, they may present a voucher to a disbursing official for payment of the forwarding charge.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 578; Pub. L. 97–258, §2(b)(1)(A), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1052; Pub. L. 104–316, title I, §105(e), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3830.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9592 | 10:1319. | May 12, 1917, ch. 12 (proviso under "Washington-Alaska Military Cable and Telegraph System"), 40 Stat. 43. |

The words "members of the Air Force" are substituted for the words "Signal Corps", since the Air Force does not have organic corps created by statute. The words "Government", "and to this end", "as may be", and "amount of such" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–316 substituted "of the forwarding" for ", or may file a claim with the General Accounting Office for the forwarding" in second sentence.

1982—Pub. L. 97–258 substituted "official" for "officer".
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Vortek Aviation LLC and Wayne Schmitz v. Zach 

Krachinski, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00165-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-58042

Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County

On March 2, 2018, appellants, Vortek Aviation LLC and Wayne Schmitz, through 

counsel, timely filed a notice of appeal from the default final judgment, signed on 

December 7, 2017, after timely moving for a new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). 

On March 19, 2018, appellant’s counsel paid for the filing fee and filed a docketing 

statement in which he stated that there was no reporter’s record. Although the clerk’s 

record was filed on April 2, 2018, the court reporter filed an info sheet on April 3, 2018, 

stating that there was a reporter’s record taken, but that it had not been filed due to lack 

of request and payment by appellant.

On April 9, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Thomas J. Kerr, counsel for 

appellants, that if he failed to provide evidence of request and payment for the reporter’s 

record by May 9, 2018, this Court may set the briefing schedule without the reporter’s 

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Neither a timely response nor the reporter’s record 

has been filed in this Court.

Accordingly, this Court will consider and decide this appeal on those issues or 

points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(c)(1), (2). Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days

from the date of this order. See id. 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to 

be filed no later than 30 days from the filing of appellant’s brief. See id. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting for the Court

Date: May 15, 2018
### Ore deposits of the Gilman District, Eagle County, Colorado

By: T. S. LoveringOgden TwetoT. G. Lovering

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1017

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130442 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. FLORENCE SHORT, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices JONATHON CROSS, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 130442 

 COA: 256423 
 Jackson CC: 03-002370-NI 

AUDBERTO C. ANTONINI, M.D., 

ADDIE JO BRISKIE, R.N, ANITA

YOUNG, R.N., DUANE WATERS

HOSPITAL, and OAKS CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 6, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 

2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp (Docket No. 131879). On order of the Court, the case 

having been decided on November 28, 2007, ___ Mich ___ (2007), the case is again 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals with regard to its affirmance of 

the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendant Antonini on the basis of Waltz 

v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004), and REMAND this case to the Jackson Circuit Court for 

entry of an order denying defendant Antonini's motion for summary disposition and for 

further proceedings not inconsistent with this order and the order in Mullins. In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 21, 2007 

 Clerk
### [§929a. Art. 129a. Omitted]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 75, §930; renumbered §929a, Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5401(10), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2939, which related to the offense of housebreaking, was omitted in the general amendment of sections 929 and 929a of this title by Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5442, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2954. See section 929(b) of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 595 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 286
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 595

                          [Report No. 106-902]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2000

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of September 27, 2000, 
providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to 
accompany the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department 
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, or any amendment reported 
in disagreement from a conference thereon.
    Sec. 2. House Resolutions 586 and 592 are laid on the table.
                                                 House Calendar No. 286

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 595

                          [Report No. 106-902]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 26, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.137 What must the Secretary do if a Tribe's noncompliance has resulted in harm or the potential for harm to a physical trust asset? If, because of the Tribe's noncompliance with Federal law or the terms of a TERA, the Secretary determines that there is harm or the potential for harm to a physical trust asset that does not rise to the level of imminent jeopardy to a physical trust asset, the Secretary must: ( a ) Document the issue in the written report of the review and evaluation;
( b ) Report the issue in writing to the Tribal governing body;
( c ) Report the issue in writing to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs; and
( d ) Determine what action, if any, the Secretary must take to protect the physical trust asset, which could include temporary suspension of the activity that resulted in non-compliance with the TERA or other applicable Federal laws or rescinding approval of all or part of the TERA.