alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4801]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWYP00000-L13200000-EL0000; WYW174596]


Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Wright 
Area South Hilight Field Coal Lease-by-Application and Environmental 
Impact Statement, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the 
availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the South Hilight 
Field Coal Lease-by-Application (LBA) included in the Wright Area Coal 
Lease Applications Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

ADDRESSES: The document is available electronically on the following 
Web site: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/HighPlains/Wright-Coal.html. Paper copies of the ROD are also available at the following 
BLM office locations:
    <bullet> Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 
Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; and
    <bullet> Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming High Plains District 
Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tyson Sackett, Acting Wyoming Coal 
Coordinator, at 307-775-6487, or Ms. Sarah Bucklin, EIS Project 
Manager, at 307-261-7541. Mr. Sackett's office is located at the BLM 
Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. 
Ms. Bucklin's office is located at the BLM High Plains District Office, 
2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ROD covered by this Notice of 
Availability is for the South Hilight Field Coal Tract and addresses 
leasing Federal coal in Campbell County, Wyoming, administered by the 
BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office. The BLM approves Alternative 
2, which is the preferred alternative for this LBA in the Wright Area 
Coal Final EIS. Under Alternative 2, the BLM will offer the South 
Hilight Field Coal LBA area, as modified by the BLM, for lease. This 
LBA area includes approximately 1,976.69 acres, more or less. The BLM 
estimates that it contains approximately 222,676,000 tons of mineable 
Federal coal reserves under the selected configuration.
    The BLM will announce a competitive coal lease sale in the Federal 
Register at a later date. The Environmental Protection Agency published 
a Federal Register notice announcing that the Final EIS was publicly 
available on July 30, 2010 (75 FR 44951).
    This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land 
Appeals (IBLA), as provided in 43 CFR part 4, within thirty (30) days 
from the date of publication of this NOA in the Federal Register. The 
ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA.

Donald A. Simpson,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2011-4801 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
### §4203. Confidentiality of declarations

#### (a) Period of confidentiality

A declarant and the declarant's agents shall not disclose the existence or filing of a declaration filed pursuant to section 4201 of this title until—

(1) the declarant receives notice that the Attorney General has concluded that an action should not be pursued under section 4206(b) of this title;

(2) the declarant receives notice of an award pursuant to section 4206(c) of this title; or

(3) the declarant is granted a contract to pursue an action under section 4205(b) or 4207 of this title.

#### (b) Maintenance of confidentiality to prevent prejudice

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the contents of a declaration shall not be disclosed by the declarant if the disclosure would prejudice or compromise in any way the completion of any government investigation or any criminal or civil case that may arise out of, or make use of, information contained in a declaration, but information contained in a declaration may be disclosed as required by duly issued and authorized legal process.

(2) The Attorney General may in a circumstance described in paragraph (1) notify a declarant that continued confidentiality is required under this subsection notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a).

#### (c) Loss of rights

A declarant who discloses, except as provided by this chapter,1 the existence or filing of a declaration or the contents thereof to anyone other than a duly authorized Federal or State investigator or the declarant's attorney shall immediately lose all rights under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2563, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4894.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original "this title", and was translated as reading "this subtitle", meaning subtitle H of title XXV of Pub. L. 101–647, known as the Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act of 1990, which is classified principally to this chapter, as the probable intent of Congress. For complete classification of subtitle H to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4201 of this title and Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### Amercoat Corporation *v.*Transamerica Insurance Company et al.

*Harry M. Lessin,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*E. John Pfotzer,*pro se, an appellant (defendant-third-party plaintiff).

No appearance for the named defendant.

Argued April 2

decided April 2, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the defendants-third-party plaintiffs Edmund Pfotzer and E. John Pfotzer from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted.
# C_2007117EN.01002202.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/22

---

Action brought on 12 March 2007 — El Fatmi v Council of the European Union

(Case T-76/07)

(2007/C 117/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Nouriddin El Fatmi (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M.J.G. Uiterwaal, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Common Position 2002/402/CSFP (OJ 2002 L 344, p. 93) is, in the case of the applicant, wrongly used as the basis for Regulation 2001/2580/EC (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and so the regulation is not binding on the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Common Position 2002/402/CSFP (OJ 2002 L 344, p. 93) is, in the case of the applicant, wrongly used as the basis for Regulation 2001/2580/EC (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and so the regulation is not binding on the applicant;

| — | in any event, that regulation should not be applied as against the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, that regulation should not be applied as against the applicant;

| — | in any event, Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123) should be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123) should be annulled;

| — | the Council should be ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council should be ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments raised by the applicant are the same as in Case T-75/07 Hamdi v Council, apart from the last plea, which is not raised by the applicant in the present case.

Hamdi

Council

---
# C_2007042EN.01004801.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/48

---

Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Dragoman v Commission

(Case F-147/06)

(2007/C 42/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adriana Dragoman (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Mihailescu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/44/06-CJ for the constitution of a reserve for future recruitment of lawyer-linguists having Romanian as their principal language to award a mark of 18/40 for written test (b) to the applicant and not to admit her to the oral test of that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/44/06-CJ for the constitution of a reserve for future recruitment of lawyer-linguists having Romanian as their principal language to award a mark of 18/40 for written test (b) to the applicant and not to admit her to the oral test of that competition;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant raises two pleas in law, the first of which is divided into two branches. The first refers to the infringement of the rules governing the work of the selection board, in that it assessed the tests by taking account rather of the comprehension of the source languages than of the precision of the translation into Romanian. The second refers to the infringement of the provisions of the competition notice relating to proper establishment and publication of the names of the members of the selection board. Such publication took place three days before the date of the tests, whereas the competition notice provided for a minimum of 15 days.

In her second plea, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of the obligation to state reasons, insofar as the assessment carried out by the selection board gives no precise details regarding the parameters used in correction of the tests.

---
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Jerald Shane Hart

, * From the 244 th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. C

- 17

- 0667

- CR

.

Vs. No. 11

- 18

- 00036

- CR * August 9 , 2018

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal

should be dismissed . Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
#### Alan R. Varley *v.*Nina B. Varley

*Nina B. Varley,*pro se, in support of the motion.

Submitted February 11

decided March 5, 1974

The defendant’s “Motion for Additional Amendments to Amended Draft Finding” dated January 15,1974, and the attachment dated January 25,1974, in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is dismissed.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this annual report on Form 20-F of Manchester United plc (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
30 June 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel Glazer, Executive Co-Chairman of the Company and Principal Executive Officer, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Date:
27 October 2014

By:

/s/ JOEL GLAZER Joel Glazer Executive Co-Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
# C_2006212EN.01001902.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 (Commercial Court No 5)/Madrid lodged on 26 June 2006 — Productores de Música de España v Telefónica de España SAU

(Case C-275/06)

(2006/C 212/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 (Commercial Court No 5)/ Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Productores de Música de España (Promusicae)

Applicant:

Defendant: Telefónica de España SAU

Defendant:

Question referred

Does Community law, in particular Articles 15(2) and 18 of Directive 2000/31/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market; Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society; Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; and Articles 17(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit Member States to limit the duty of operators of electronic communications networks and services, providers of telecommunications network access and providers of data storage services to retain and make available connection and traffic information generated during the supply of an information society service to where it is required in connection with a criminal investigation or the need to protect public safety and national defence, thus excluding civil proceedings?

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ L 178, p. l.

1

(2)  OJ L 167, p. 10.

2

(3)  OJ L 157, p. 45.

3

---
#### § 40.3 Applications.

Applications for educational loans, grants, and working scholarships shall be submitted through the superintendent or officer in charge of the agency at which the applicant is enrolled in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner.
# C_2010161EN.01002901.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Emanuele Ferazzoli v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-164/10)

(2010/C 161/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emanuele Ferazzoli

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Question referred

Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

| (a) | tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

| (b) | in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

| (c) | provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?

---
10.2 

 11/08/04 

Page 1 

Quitting Tobacco: Handling Irritability and Frustration ... Without Smoking 

What To Expect 

• When you quit smoking, you may feel edgy and short-tempered. 

• You may want to give up on tasks more quickly than usual. 

• You may be less tolerant of others’ behavior. 

• You may get into more arguments.

Did You Know? 

• Studies have found that most quitters report increased feelings of irritability, anger, and 

frustration within a week of quitting. 

• If feelings of irritability, anger, and frustration occur, they usually begin on the first day, 

peak during the first couple of weeks, and disappear within a month.

What To Do 

• Take a walk. 

• Exercise. 

• Reduce caffeine. 

• Soak in a hot bath. 

• Read up on relaxation/meditation techniques and use one. 

• Take one minute and, with your eyes closed, pay attention to your breathing pattern. 

Breathe in deeply through your nose and breathe out through your mouth. 

Nicotine and Your Body and Mind 

• When your body does not get nicotine, you may feel irritable, angry, and frustrated. 

• Quitting will temporarily change your brain chemistry. These temporary changes may 

result in your experiencing negative emotions.

Related Notes 

• Feelings of anger, irritability, and frustration may be reduced by using nicotine 

replacement products, which deliver small, steady doses of nicotine into the body. 

Nicotine replacement patches, gum, lozenges, nasal spray, and inhaler appear to be 

equally effective. Buproprion pills (which don’t contain nicotine) also help relieve 

withdrawal symptoms. 
10.2 

 11/08/04 

Page 2 

How To Get Help 

• If you or someone you know wants help with giving up tobacco, please call the National 

Cancer Institute’s Smoking Quitline toll-free at 1–877–44U–QUIT (1–877–448–7848). 

The information specialists on the Quitline can provide suggestions and support to help 

smokers break the habit. 

• The Federal Government’s Smokefree.gov Web site (http://www.smokefree.gov) allows 

you to choose the help that best fits your needs. You can get immediate assistance: 

o View an online step-by-step cessation guide. 

o Find state quitline telephone numbers. 

o Instant message an expert through NCI’s LiveHelp service. 

o Download, print, or order publications about quitting smoking.

# # # 

This fact sheet was reviewed on 11/08/04

This fact sheet was adapted from material developed by the Tobacco Education and Prevention Program of the 

Arizona Department of Health Services and the Arizona Smokers’ Helpline of the University of Arizona.
1Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-10136

Summary Calendar

JOHNNIE SUE CAWLEY, Independent Executrix 

of the Estate of George Berryman, Jr.

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MONY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:93-CV-2462)

June 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

This diversity case decided on cross motions for summary

judgment presents the issue whether, under Texas law, the

incontestability clause of a life insurance policy precludes the

issuing insurer from contesting that the policy was void ab initio.

The district court held that it did and we affirm.

The facts are uncontested. Dr. Berryman, the insured,

obtained from Appellant a term life policy on his own life. He
2

subsequently made another person the owner of the policy.

Thereafter, he applied to convert it to a universal life policy.

The Appellant did so. The universal life policy contains an

incontestability clause. Both parties agree that when he requested

the change from term life to universal life, Dr. Berryman lacked

the legal authority to do so because he was no longer the owner of

the policy. Appellant argued to the district court, and does so

here, that because the universal life policy was void ab initio,

the incontestability clause has no effect; the policy was never “in

force”. The clause reads:

This policy will be incontestable after it has

been in force during the lifetime of the

Insured for 2 years from its date of issue,

except as to any provision for benefits in

case of total disability. But, any material

statements made in an application for an

optional increase in Specified Amount or in

any application for reinstatement will be

incontestable only after the increase or

reinstatement has been in force during the

lifetime of the Insured for 2 years from the

date it took effect.

The district court concluded, correctly we think, that the law

of Texas precluded Appellant’s argument. In so holding the court

relied primarily upon Central States Life Ins. Co. v. Byrnes, 375

S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Civ. App., 1964 ) N.R.E.; Kansas Life Ins. Co. v.

Truscott, 124 Tex. 409, 78 S.W.2d 584 (1935); and Trevino v.

American Nat. Ins. Co., 168 S.W. 2d 656 (Tex Com. App. 1943).

While these cases do not involve the precise facts and issue of
3

this case, we agree with the district court that these cases

correctly state the law of Texas on the subject. Their rational

and result appear consistant with the rule in the majority of

jurisdictions. See, Keaten v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 648 F.2d

299 (5th Cir. 1981). The district court correctly applied that law

to the facts of this case.

AFFIRMED.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1027

AN ACT

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deschutes Resources

5 Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 1999’’.
2

S 1027 ES

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF

2 RECLAMATION IN DESCHUTES RESOURCES

3 CONSERVANCY.

4 Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act

5 of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat.

6 3009–534) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the

8 period at the end the following: ‘‘, and up to a total

9 amount of $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years

10 2002 through 2006’’; and

11 (2) in subsection (h), by inserting before the pe12 riod at the end the following: ‘‘and $2,000,000 for

13 each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006’’.

Passed the Senate July 1, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1027

AN ACT

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of

vancy, and for other purposes.Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conser-
§ 290.19 How long will the ABO take to review and approve the tribal revenue allocation plan? The ABO must review and act on your tribal revenue allocation plan within 60 days of receiving it. A tribal revenue allocation plan is not effective without the ABO's written approval. ( a ) If the tribal revenue allocation plan conforms with this part and the IGRA, the ABO must approve it.
( b ) If the tribal revenue allocation plan does not conform with this part and the IGRA, the ABO will send you a written notice that: ( 1 ) Explains why the plan doesn't conform to this part of the IGRA; and
( 2 ) Tells you how to bring the plan into conformance.
( c ) If the ABO doesn't act within 60 days, you can appeal the inaction under 25 CFR part 2. A tribal revenue allocation plan is not effective without the express written approval of the ABO.