alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Technical Assistance and Training Grants

WASHINGTON, April 1, 2019 – Acting Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Joel Baxley today 

announced that USDA is accepting applications for grants to help rural communities expand their capacity to

access financial resources for economic development.

USDA is making grants available under the Community Facilities Technical Assistance and Training

program. These grants help rural communities with limited resources and staff access USDA funding for 

essential community facilities.

Eligible recipients are public entities, private nonprofit organizations and federally recognized tribes that 

have experience in providing technical assistance and training to rural entities. Eligible projects include those 

involving multi-jurisdictions and collaborations among rural communities.

Electronic applications must be submitted to grants.gov by June 10, 2019, at midnight EDT. Paper 

applications must be submitted to the applicant’s nearest USDA office by June 17, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. EDT. 

Additional information is available on page 12190 of the April 1, 2019, Federal Register.

USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Report to the President of the 

United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB) to help improve life in 

rural America. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural 

communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, 

partnerships and innovation. Key strategies include:

• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technological Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life

USDA also encourages applications that will support the Administration’s goal to combat substance use 

disorder, including opioid misuse, in high-risk rural communities by strengthening the capacity to address 

prevention, treatment and/or recovery.

#
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          4,197
<SECURITIES>                                   42,606
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (87)
<INVENTORY>                                       834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               55,392
<PP&E>                                          1,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                    225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 56,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,097
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           13
<OTHER-SE>                                     48,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   56,897
<SALES>                                         7,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,507
<CGS>                                             841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,326
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,074
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.16


</TABLE>
1

Palma, Elizabeth

From: Palma, Elizabeth

Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 2:08 PM

To: Palma, Elizabeth

Subject: API-EPA/RTP Meeting

American Petroleum Institute (API) meeting with EPA

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Discussion with EPA’s Air Quality Policy Division (11am – noon)

 EER Comments – review of API comments on proposed rule revisions and draft guidance  

 Other ozone implementation issues:  

o Finalizing cut points for designations

o Latest thoughts on timing of designations (October or December?)              

o Plans to extend the OTR? Other approaches?                    

 Permit Issues:

o Public notice provisions

o Discuss methane becoming an NSR pollutant due to direct regulation in the NSPS and coordination

between permit folks and upstream rule writers on fix.                    

o GHG SER                               

API Attendees

Erin Tullos – ExxonMobil (TX)

Dawna Allen – ExxonMobil (TX)

Bruce Copley – ExxonMobil (PA)

Tyler Kruzich – Chevron (CA)

Chris Rabideau – Chevron (TX)

Heidi Erickson – Chevron (TX)

Dave Pavlich – Phillips 66 (OK)

Terry Lathem – Phillips 66 (OK)

Dana Wood – BP (TX) – via teleconference

Charlie Bennett – Marathon Petroleum (KY)

Shari Keller – Shell (TX)

Grover Campbell – Devon (OK)

Greg Johnston – Chesapeake (OK)

Ted Steichen – API (DC)

Mara Zimmerman – API (VA)

Cathy Kalisz – API – via teleconference

EPA Attendees

Scott Mathias

Phil Lorang

Juan Santiago

Anna Wood

Beth Palma
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6830

In Re: JOHNNY LEE GORE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(4:01-cr-00627-CWH)

Submitted: June 26, 2006 Decided: August 18, 2006

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Lee Gore, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Gore petitions for writ of mandamus seeking an

order compelling the district court to release grand jury

transcripts. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought and no other means to seek that

relief. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th

Cir. 1988); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 826.

Gore does not have a clear right to the grand jury

transcripts he seeks, nor does this case involve extraordinary

circumstances. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny

as moot Gore’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.R. MCFARLANE, M.C. HOLIFIELD, K.J. BRUBAKER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOSEPH E. FISHER

FIRE CONTROL TECHNICIAN SEAMAN (E-3), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400426

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 20 August 2014.

Military Judge: CDR Marcus Fulton, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl 

Harbor, HI.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LCDR J.S. Ayeroff,

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: CDR Suzanne M. Lachelier, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

26 February 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### § 80.2 General restrictions.

Domestic animals that are positive to an official Johne's disease test may not be moved interstate except in compliance with this part.
### §1843. Limitations and conditions of loan guarantees

#### (a) Necessary findings

A guarantee of a loan may be made under this chapter only if—

(1) the Board finds that (A) the loan is needed to enable the borrower to continue to furnish goods or services and failure to meet this need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of or employment in the Nation or any region thereof, (B) credit is not otherwise available to the borrower under reasonable terms or conditions, and (C) the prospective earning power of the borrower, together with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish reasonable assurance that it will be able to repay the loan within the time fixed, and afford reasonable protection to the United States; and

(2) the lender certifies that it would not make the loan without such guarantee.

#### (b) Term of loans; renewal

Loans guaranteed under this chapter shall be payable in not more than five years, but may be renewable for not more than an additional three years.

#### (c) Interest rates, determination; guarantee fee

(1) Loans guaranteed under this chapter shall bear interest payable to the lending institutions at rates determined by the Board taking into account the reduction in risk afforded by the loan guarantee and rates charged by lending institutions on otherwise comparable loans.

(2) The Board shall prescribe and collect a guarantee fee in connection with each loan guaranteed under this chapter. Such fee shall reflect the Government's administrative expense in making the guarantee and the risk assumed by the Government and shall not be less than an amount which, when added to the amount of interest payable to the lender of such loan, produces a total charge appropriate for loan agreements of comparable risk and maturity if supplied by the normal capital markets.

(Pub. L. 92–70, §4, Aug. 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 178.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12016-12017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4830]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


MedBow-Routt Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The MedBow-Routt Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Walden, Colorado. The committee is meeting as authorized under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-
343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 
purpose of the meeting is to review new project proposals and update 
RAC members on the progress of previously approved projects.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 24, 2011 from 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Parks Ranger District, 100 Main 
Street, Walden, Colorado. Written comments should be sent to Phil Cruz, 
RAC DFO, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070. Comments may also 
be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#21514253545b6147520f4744450f5452"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="34445746414e7452471a5251501a4147">[email protected]</span></a>, or via facsimile to 307-745-
2467.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diann Ritschard, RAC Coordinator, 925 
Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487, 970-870-2187, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6a2b4afb2b5a5aea7b4a286a0b5e8a0a3a2e8b3b5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7511071c0106161d1407113513065b1310115b0006">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information

[[Page 12017]]

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
following business will be conducted: Review of the status of approved 
projects; discussion of travel reimbursement, review and discussion of 
new project proposal and public forum discussion. Persons who wish to 
bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file 
written statements with the Committee staff before or after the 
meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who 
made written requests by March 17, 2011 will have the opportunity to 
address the Committee at those sessions.

    Dated: February 25, 2011.
Phil Cruz,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-4830 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## NO. 12

- 20

- 00229

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF L. D. C.,

A CHILD §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Appellant

, David Ray Crof ford

, filed a motion to dismiss this ap peal. In the m otion,

Crofford states that he no longer wishes to appeal

. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is

granted, and the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a).

Opinion delivered March 31, 2021.

Pa nel consisted of Wor then, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neele y, J.

## COURT OF APP EALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 3 1 , 2021

NO. 12

- 20

- 00229

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L. D. C., A CHILD

Appeal fro m the County Court at Law

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CCL

- 17

- 15,773 )

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJU DGED and

DECREED by this Cou rt that the motion to dismiss be granted and th e appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to t he court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      83,341,000
<SECURITIES>                                16,566,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,643,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   392,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           103,981,000
<PP&E>                                       7,253,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,466,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             111,212,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,191,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 103,290,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               111,212,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,833,000
<CGS>                                        6,070,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,430,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,324,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,343,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,343,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)
        

</TABLE>
### §2105. Application of other laws

The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other law of the United States or of the law of any State.

(Pub. L. 93–167, §6, Nov. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 687.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable only to imitation political items and imitation numismatic items manufactured after Nov. 29, 1973, see section 8 of Pub. L. 93–167, set out as a note under section 2101 of this title.
# C_2014315EN.01004802.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/48

---

Order of the General Court of 10 July 2014 — H v Council and Others

(Case T-271/10) (1)

1

((Application for annulment - Application for damages - Common foreign and security policy - National expert seconded to the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Decision to redeploy - Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: H (Catania, Italy) (represented initially by: C. Mereu and M. Velardo, and subsequently by M. Velardo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, G. Marhic and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents); European Commission (represented by F. Erlbacher and B. Eggers, acting as Agents); and European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina))

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Chief of Personnel of the EUPM, by which the applicant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser — Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, if needed, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission referred to in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (OJ 2009 L 322, p. 22), confirming the decision of 7 April 2010, and second, for damages,

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms H shall bear her own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms H shall bear her own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---
Exhibit






AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
TO THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PROVISIONS (APPENDIX B) OF THE
 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY PENSION PLAN
CONSOLIDATED AS AT JANUARY 1, 2009
Effective April 1, 2011,
		
	1.
	Delete Section B.1.14 and replace it with the following:


B.1.14    Executive DC Member
“Executive DC Member” means a DC Member who holds a permanent position graded S43 or higher, or the equivalent classification under any of the Company’s salary plans.
### Vicki Hamilton
From: Sent: To: Subject: KENNETH STROBEL <forstrob@msn.com> Wednesday, AprillO, 2013 7:58AM Vicki Hamilton EAS Commission

." '· (::·--,)

..... _,.' '::•:,! i;
·::· '! I ··•·i, ',.;**i~'" ,,::,:.·:~:j** **;.}:>~~**

# ::.~~:::::~::our EAS. "

# ~~~ Why are we stopping Miles Cities EAS, because ofone Carrier on a 2yr contract that**a6esn~~:!** 

### ;:.: ::: accommodate our needs? Ourboarding's have always been good (till the last 2yr)

### and:.::~hmi"l'd continue to improve with the Bakken oil and gas in ourlocal areas. Looking at our boarding's you can see 

### that ourboarding's 2yrs ago were sustaining the EAS requirements 

### because ofcompatible connections. The last few years we have had no compatible departures to connect with other airlines. Leaving most ofourpassengers no choice butto find other ways.



### . When a passenger has to leave MLS on our earliestflt at 1145a and the latest return is 130p that gives you no time to do business. (That's a lhr difference between our earliest arrival and latest departure in BIL) This is why we are not making our EAS requirements. ALL THE OTHERMTEAS CITIES HAVE A EARLY MORNING AND LATE NIGHT FLT INTO THEIR CITIES. And we did have this service for the past 20yrtill these past 2yrs. 

### Miles city is a hub of6 smaller cities in the area; Baker, Broadus, Forsyth, Terry,Jordan, Colstrip) they also will be deprived oftransportation. Not only will Miles City be 150mi from an airport Hub. Some of these cities would have to drive over 250 mile owto an airport. Baker, Broadus, Jordan, Miles city are all in the early stages ofGas·and Oil expiration. Like Sidney these companies would need an airline to getthere employees in and out. With the Bakken closer to Miles City there will be a great demand for the area. 

### Miles city is a Medical Hub for all surrounding towns. Ourhospital brings in specialists. With no flights this will put a tremendous financial burden onthem. 

### We have a VA Hospital, patients are sentto Salt Lake and Denver, 

### ourDisabled Veterans would be deprived ofgetting Medical attention they need 

### No reliable bus and we have no trains. Our senior Citizens thathave no way ofdrivingwill greatly miss the airline. Thanks For your Time Karen Strobel

1
#### Magoffin County v. Bailey.

March 14, 1939.

J. Brack Howard, Judge.

A. H. ADAMS for appellant.

H. H. RAMEY for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Stanley, Commissioner

Reversing.

*384Wallis Bailey appealed to the circuit court from an order of the Magoffin Fiscal Court rejecting a claim made by him, styled “Amount of cost due Wallis Bailey, ex-sheriff of Magoffin County, from land sales.” The itemized statement covers the years 1925 to 1928, inclusive. The aggregate is $1,295. The circuit court awarded Mm judgment for $785 as “commission due Mm on land sales,” but denied judgment for $510 covering cost of advertising the sales. The county appeals.

The record is astoundingly meager. It is said in brief, but not elsewhere, that the property had been sold for delinquent taxes and bid in by the sheriff under the direction of section 4151-2 of the Statutes. As is stated in Knox County v. Lewis’ Adm’r, 253 Ky. 652, 69 S. W. (2d) 1000, 1004:

> “It is very clear from the language of the statute the sheriff is not entitled to charge and collect of the county, or the county board of education, or other taxing district, where he sells land for taxes and the state bids it in, as provided by section 4151-2, either the' cost of advertising or his commissions, whether the taxpayer exercises his right of redemption or not.”

If we consider only the record, then the claim and order rejecting it, which constitute the entire pleadings, did not authorize the judgment. If the land was sold and not bid in by the sheriff, then he is not entitled to collect commissions from the county.

The judgment is reversed.