alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: January 18 , 201 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

NOTICE

Japan Charter Authorizations

(January 1

– December 31, 20 1 3 )

Under the terms of the 20 10 U.S.

- Japan Memorandum of Understanding ( 20 10 MOU ), U.S.

carriers may operate an unlimited number of one

- way charter flights (hereinafter we refer to

“one

- way charters” simply as “charters”) between the United States and Ja pan during the

20 1 3 calendar year (January 1

- December 31, 20 1 3 ), subject to the limitation that no more

than six hundred ( 6 00) charters may operate to or from Tokyo ’s Haneda Airport

. As a result

of the 20 10 MOU , U .S. carriers now only require a Notice of Consistency from the

Department when operating charters between the United States and Haneda

. 1

We have determined that the demand for U .S.

- Haneda charters for the 2013 calendar year can

continue to be met by using th e U.S.

- Tokyo charter allocation procedures that were implemented for the 2008 c alendar year and have remained in place for subsequent c alendar

years. Specifically, t he 6 00 U.S.

- Haneda charter s will be available to U.S. carriers for

distribution for the 2013 calendar year on a first

- come, first

- serve d basis subject to the

following procedures and conditions:

1. Applications to operate U.S.

- Haneda charters may be filed no earlier than 1 20 days in

advance of the flight date

. 2 For the period January 1 through October 31, 20 1 3

, carriers may apply for up to 50 charters per month. After October 31, 20 1 3 , no
restrictions apply on the number of charters that may be applied for each month;

2. Applications must identify the type of charter (passenger or cargo); the date of each

one

- wa y flight; the charterer(s); the city

- pair markets involved by direction; the type

of aircraft to be used; and (for cargo charters) the type of cargo transported. Carriers

may be asked to provide copies of signed charter contracts;

1 T his does not relieve U.S. carriers from the requirement to obtain proper authorization for all U.S.

- Japan

charters from the Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT)

. 2 Applications should be sent by e

- mail to darren.jaffe @dot.gov , or by fax to 202

- 366

- 3694.3. The Department will g rant U.S.

- Haneda charter pool allocations by providing a Notice

of Consistency to applicant carriers; 3

4. Carriers receiving a charter pool allocation shall, in writing, return any unused

allocations to the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

. 4

By:

Paul L. Gretch, Director

Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated: January 18 , 201 3

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov

3 The carrier must also obtain proper authorization for its U.S.

- Haneda charters from the Japan M LIT

. 4 This notification must be received within two business days of the carrier’s determination that an allocated

flight or flights will not operate.
§ 141.300 FERC Form No. 715, Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report. ( a ) *Who must file.* Any transmitting utility, as defined in § 3(23) of the Federal Power Act, that operates integrated (that is, non-radial) transmission facilities at or above 100 kilovolts must complete FERC Form No. 715.
( b ) *When to file.* FERC Form No. 715 must be filed on or before each April 1.
( c ) *What to file.* FERC Form No. 715 must be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in accordance with the instructions on that form.
( d ) *Critical Energy Infrastructure Information.* ( 1 ) If the instructions in Form No. 715 require a utility to reveal Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), as defined in § 388.113(c) of this chapter, to any person, the utility shall omit the CEII from the information made available and insert the following in its place: ( i ) A statement that CEII is being withheld;
( ii ) A brief description of the omitted information that does not reveal any CEII; and
( iii ) This statement: “Procedures for obtaining access to Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) may be found at 18 CFR 388.113. Requests for access to CEII should be made to the Commission's CEII Coordinator.”
( 2 ) The utility completing Form No. 715, in determining whether information constitutes CEII, shall treat the information in a manner consistent with any filings that utility has made with the Commission and shall to the extent practicable adhere to any previous determinations by the Commission or the CEII Coordinator involving the same or like information.
( 3 ) The procedures contained in §§ 388.112 and 388.113 of this chapter regarding designation of, and access to, CEII, shall apply in the event of a challenge to a CEII designation or a request for access to CEII. If it is determined that information is not CEII or that a requester should be granted access to CEII, the utility will be directed to make the information available to the requester.
( 4 ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any persons from voluntarily reaching arrangements or agreements calling for the disclosure of CEII.
[58 FR 52436, Oct. 8, 1993, as amended by Order 643, 68 FR 52095, Sept. 2, 2003]
#### § 25.1 Applicability and governing laws.

These rules and regulations, and the laws of the United States and the District of Columbia, apply to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Building and its grounds, 441 G Street NW., in the District of Columbia, and to all persons while in the building or while entering or leaving it.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Motorvehicle use map, Tahoe National Forest, Yuba River Ranger District (North),California**
 
2013: Front | Back
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:T 13/7/2013
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000955373
 
May 16, 2018
#### Isabella GREENWAY, Guardian, etc., et al., Movants, v. D. Andrew SHEARARD, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 26, 1939.

Grant E. Lilly for movants.

G. Murray Smith, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; judgment affirmed.
### §1666h. Offset of cardholder's indebtedness by issuer of credit card with funds deposited with issuer by cardholder; remedies of creditors under State law not affected

#### (a) Offset against consumer's funds

A card issuer may not take any action to offset a cardholder's indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit transaction under the relevant credit card plan against funds of the cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer unless—

(1) such action was previously authorized in writing by the cardholder in accordance with a credit plan whereby the cardholder agrees periodically to pay debts incurred in his open end credit account by permitting the card issuer periodically to deduct all or a portion of such debt from the cardholder's deposit account, and

(2) such action with respect to any outstanding disputed amount not be taken by the card issuer upon request of the cardholder.

In the case of any credit card account in existence on the effective date of this section, the previous written authorization referred to in clause (1) shall not be required until the date (after such effective date) when such account is renewed, but in no case later than one year after such effective date. Such written authorization shall be deemed to exist if the card issuer has previously notified the cardholder that the use of his credit card account will subject any funds which the card issuer holds in deposit accounts of such cardholder to offset against any amounts due and payable on his credit card account which have not been paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the card issuer and the cardholder.

#### (b) Attachments and levies

This section does not alter or affect the right under State law of a card issuer to attach or otherwise levy upon funds of a cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer if that remedy is constitutionally available to creditors generally.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §169, as added Pub. L. 93–495, title III, §306, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1515.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For effective date of this section, referred to in subsec. (a), see Effective Date note set out under section 1666 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
SEC Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         2184301
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3959513
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                           13536044
<PP&E>                                         1760588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                23702300
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                     6265987
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             3493713
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         49933
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  23702300
<TRADING-REVENUE>                             34214505
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            380752
<COMMISSIONS>                                  2396754
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  4811399
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                22226110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3265828
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1819963
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30690 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ALEX KIRBY ANDERSON, also known as Gmb Tutru Anderson ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:16

- CR

- 269

- 1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alex Kirby Anderson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 78 months of imprisonment. H e appeals that sentence, arguing that in light of
Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), his previous conviction under a Louisiana statute, L A

. S TAT . 40:966(A)(1), for possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance , does not qualify as a controlled substan ce

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 9, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30690 Document: 00514787607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2019No. 17

- 30690

2 offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). He therefore contends th at the district court erred in applying the enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (a)(3)

. Because Anderson did not object to the base offense level in the district
court, our review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) . To establish plain error, Anderson must show , among other things, a forfeited error that is clear or obvious. See id

. Anderson has
not shown that his challenge to the calculation of his base offense level under § 2K2.1(a)(3) is not subject to reasonable dispute

. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135

. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-30690 Document: 00514787607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. JEFFREY BIDELMAN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 185 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 31st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60096

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WALLACE HAYNES, III, also known as Roots,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:07-CR-104-1

Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Wallace Haynes, III, was convicted of one count of

possessing less than five grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute and is

currently serving a sentence of 90 months in prison to be followed by a threeyear term of supervised release. In this out-of-time direct appeal, Haynes claims

that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the

presentence report and to challenge his base offense level, his criminal history,

and the amount of drugs for which he was held responsible.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 26, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60096 Document: 00511800195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2012
No. 11-60096

Although not addressed by either party, we note that Haynes’s notice of

appeal was “both late and premature” because the district court did not reenter

his judgment of conviction. See United States v. West, 240 F.3d 456, 457-59 (5th

Cir. 2001); see also In re Bradford, 660 F.3d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 2011). The time

limit for filing a criminal appealhe, however, is not jurisdictional and can be

waived. United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007). As the

government does not raise this issue, it is waived, and we will address the merits

of the appeal.

Haynes has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The government

invokes the waiver of his appellate rights in Haynes’s plea agreement and

contends that this waiver precludes consideration of his claims concerning

counsel’s alleged deficiencies at sentencing. The government is correct. Our

review of the record confirms that Haynes’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. 

See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). This review

likewise establishes that the plain language of the plea agreement applies to the

claims he raises. Id.; see also United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336, 343 (5th Cir.

2002). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 11-60096 Document: 00511800195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2012
Payette National Forest 

Travel Management Plan FEIS

Travel Management Maps 

April 2007 

Contents 

Summer Travel Maps – in this map packet 

Alternative E, Management Areas 1 through 4 .............1 map 

Alternative E, Management Area 3 through 13..............1 map 

Winter Travel Maps – in FEIS at end of Chapter 2

Alternative A.......................................................................1 map 

Alternative B ......................................................................1 map 

Alternative C.......................................................................1 map 

Alternative D.......................................................................1 map 

Alternative E .......................................................................1 map 

Introduction 

Summer 

This packet includes the two maps that show the existing and proposed summer travel 

management described in FEIS Chapter 2. One map is the west side of the Forest (MAs 1 

through 4), and one is the east side (MAs 3 through 13). The maps are for Alternative E, as 

the DEIS map packet provided the maps for Alternatives A through D. 

Proposed changes (Proposals) are shown by Proposal Identification (Proposal ID) number. 

Each Proposal is found in one or more of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Tables 2-2 

through 2-26 in Chapter 2 in concert with the maps show how the proposals differ by 

alternative. 

In areas where dispersed camping and parking are in designated sites only – Krassel Ranger 

District, Lake Creek on the McCall Ranger District, and northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat 

on the west side of the Forest – designated sites are symbolized with either a tent for 

dispersed camping or a “TH” for a trailhead. 

Winter 

Winter maps are in the FEIS volume at the end of Chapter 2. These color (8 1/2” x 11”) maps 

display the winter management proposals for winter motorized area closures and for 

snowmobile grooming. 
Detailed versions of these maps are on the Payette National Forest website at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette/main.html
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Grants to Improve Health Care in the Delta Region

WASHINGTON, May 20, 2021 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced that it is 

accepting applications for grants to improve health care in the Delta region. 

USDA is making up to $3 million in grants available through the Delta Health Care Services Grant Program.

The funding may be used to support activities such as health education programs, health care services, job 

training in health care fields, and developing or expanding public health facilities. 

Projects funded under this program must serve the Delta region. This is defined as 252 counties and parishes in 

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. The program is a 

collaborative effort among health care professionals, institutions of higher education, research centers and other 

entities. 

USDA encourages applications that will support the Biden administration’s goal to reduce morbidity and 

mortality. This includes applications for programs and services to address substance use disorder (including 

opioid misuse) in high-risk rural communities by strengthening the capacity to address prevention, treatment 

and/or recovery. 

The minimum grant award is $50,000. The maximum award is $1 million. Grants will be awarded on a 

competitive basis.

Completed applications for grants must be submitted electronically by no later than midnight Eastern Standard 

Time July 19, 2021 through http://www.grants.gov.

For additional information, see page 27370 of the May 20, 2021, Federal Register. 

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
#### Wabash Valley Oil Company *v.*Berry et al.

[No. 12,432.

Filed October 13, 1925.]

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act between the Wabash Valley Oil Company and Emma C. Berry and others. From the award, the former appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Turner, Adams, Merrell & Locke,*for appellant.

*Rabb, Mahoney, Fansler & Douglass,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2006281EN.01001602.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez

(Case C-417/05 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Temporary staff - Article 2(a) of the CEOS - Period completed within the Commission as a national expert on secondment - Application for annulment - Admissibility - Request under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations - Definition - Measure adversely affecting an official)

(2006/C 281/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez (represented by: J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03 Fernández Gómez v Commission [2005] by which the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Employment, of 12 May 2003, rejecting the application for renewal of the applicant's contract and by which it ordered the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 to compensate for the damage suffered.

Fernández Gómez

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 in Case T-272/03 Fernández Gómez v Commission is set aside; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 in Case T-272/03 Fernández Gómez v Commission is set aside;

Fernández Gómez

Commission

| 2. | The action brought by Ms Fernández Gómez before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 12 May 2003 rejecting the application for renewal of Ms Fernández Gómez's contract and for compensation in respect of the damage which allegedly resulted from that decision is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action brought by Ms Fernández Gómez before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 12 May 2003 rejecting the application for renewal of Ms Fernández Gómez's contract and for compensation in respect of the damage which allegedly resulted from that decision is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 3. | The parties are ordered to bear their own costs as regards both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The parties are ordered to bear their own costs as regards both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

1

---