alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09591**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  09591\09591_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09591\09591_PARTA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09591\09591_PARTE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09591\09591_PARTH.xls Plant submitted survey file

09591\09591_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 09591\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\09591_ Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09591\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\09591_ ConfidentialBusinessInfoIndex_LP1.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09591\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\09591_ Lost Pines 1 Plot_A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09591\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\09591_ Lost Pines 1 Water Balance_A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09591\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\09591_ Master Document List_LP1.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09591\09591_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09591\09591_ Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIALIZATION OF WEATHER SATELLITES
# C_2010148EN.01004302.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/43

---

Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV v Commission

(Case T-151/10)

2010/C 148/72

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Drijber, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s Decision of 15 December 2009 (C(2009) 9963) in so far as concerns the Commission’s finding that the opportunity for housing corporations to borrow from the Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s Decision of 15 December 2009 (C(2009) 9963) in so far as concerns the Commission’s finding that the opportunity for housing corporations to borrow from the Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant’s application is for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 concerning State aid No E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — The Netherlands, Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

In support of its application the applicant submits, first, that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission’s conclusion that the applicant’s loans constituted State aid was based on an incorrect interpretation of the condition for liability.

Second, the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission’s conclusion that the applicant’s loans were not in accordance with market conditions, and therefore contained an advantage, was based on an incorrect interpretation of the facts.

Third, the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons and the principle of care because, despite the submissions concerning the loans which the applicant put forward through the Netherlands authorities, the Commission found, without any investigation, that the loans were State aid.

---
### C ourt of Appeals , Sta t e of Michigan
People 

### of MI v Kevin 

### Raynard Jackson Docket No. 322350 LC No. 13-020353-FH 

### ORDER Mark T. Boonstra Presiding Jud ge Henr y William Saad Joel P. Hoekstra

Judge s The Court order s that th e motion for reconsideration is GRANT ED, and this Court's op ini on issued October 13, 2015 is h ereby VACA TED . A new opinion is attached to this order.

A true copy entered and certified by Jero m e W. Zim m er Jr.. Ch ie f C l e rk , on 

# DEC 0 3 2015 Date

# ~~,GL**Chie~**
# C_2007020EN.01004002.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/40

---

Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Bligny v Commission

(Case F-142/06)

(2007/C 20/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Francesco Bligny (Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France) (represented by: P. Lebel-Nourissat, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/06/05 of 7 December 2006 and that of 23 November 2006, refusing to admit the applicant to the competition and therefore to correct his written test; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/06/05 of 7 December 2006 and that of 23 November 2006, refusing to admit the applicant to the competition and therefore to correct his written test;

| — | find that the application form published on 15 May 2006 on the EPSO internet site for use by candidates of the competition was improper; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the application form published on 15 May 2006 on the EPSO internet site for use by candidates of the competition was improper;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in compensation for his loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in compensation for his loss;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after passing the pre-selection tests for the above-mentioned competition, was not admitted to the next stage since, contrary to what was indicated in the notice of competition published in the Official Journal (1), he had failed to include with his application form any document proving his citizenship.

1

In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. He submits in particular that, concerning citizenship, the model application form to be downloaded from the EPSO internet site merely required an honour declaration and warned candidates that, on request, they would have to provide documentary evidence.

---

(1)  OJ C 178 A of 27.7.2005, p. 3.

1

---
### §1214. "Interstate commerce" defined

As used in this chapter, the term "interstate commerce" includes commerce between one State, Territory, possession, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and another State, Territory, possession, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(Aug. 2, 1956, ch. 890, §4, 70 Stat. 953.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Secretary of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission under this chapter transferred to Consumer Product Safety Commission, see section 2079 of this title.
Fund Gross Liability Gross Premium Gross Indemnity Retained Liability * Retained Premium * Retaine

A 13,728,048,521 1,675,089,562 2,505,779,651 2,567,145,070 313,241,739 C 100,683,512,030 8,424,789,973 6,231,161,179 94,092,534,011 7,865,580,126 Total 114,411,560,551 10,099,879,535 8,736,940,830 96,659,679,081 8,178,821,865 

Footnotes: * Includes 6.5% Net Book Quota Share.

2020 Reinsurance Data

National Totals By Fund

As of 03/2024

Page 1 of 1
#### § 39.1100 Interim fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1981 funding for pre-kindergarten programs previously funded by the Bureau.

Those schools having pre-kindergarten programs funded fully or in part from Bureau education funds in fiscal year 1979 shall be funded from Bureau education funds by the Director in fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1981 at their fiscal year 1979 Bureau education funding levels. The fiscal year 1979 pre-kindergarten Bureau funding amount for each Bureau funded school shall be deducted from the school's fiscal year 1979 Bureau Education Budget amount prior to application of the phase-in provision.

[44 FR 61864, Oct. 26, 1979. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982. Redesignated and amended at 70 FR 33702, June 9, 2005]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001063530
<NAME>                        Surgical Safety Products, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         376,765
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               476,207
<PP&E>                                         359,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                 185,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,298,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          487,015
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12,640
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,527,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,298,684
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               58,556
<CGS>                                          27,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               426,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               59,197
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             25,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (479,846)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (479,846)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.038)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.038)



</TABLE>
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Invites Applications to Strengthen Rural Cooperatives and Expand 

Economic Opportunities for People in Rural America

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2022 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Under 

Secretary Xochitl Torres Small today announced that the department is accepting applications for grants to help 

start, expand or improve rural cooperatives and other mutually-owned businesses. 

USDA is offering priority points to projects that advance key priorities under the Biden-Harris Administration 

to help communities recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, advance equity and combat climate change. These 

extra points will increase the likelihood of funding for projects seeking to address these critical challenges in 

rural America.

USDA is making the grants available under the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program to 

help improve economic conditions in rural areas through cooperative development. For fiscal year 2022, the 

maximum award is $200,000. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis through a national competition.

Nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education are eligible to apply for grants to provide technical 

and cooperative development assistance to individuals and rural businesses. 

Electronic applications must be submitted to grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on June 6, 2022. 

Interested applicants are encouraged to contact their local USDA Rural Development State Office well in 

advance of the application deadline to discuss their project and ask any questions about the RCDG program or 

the application process. Contact information for state offices can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contactus/state-offices.

Additional information on the required materials and how to apply for the RCDG program are available on page 

19842 of the April 6, 2022, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED MARCH 31, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      12,811,879
<SECURITIES>                                 4,105,721
<RECEIVABLES>                                  456,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    315,623
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,002,106
<PP&E>                                         696,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                 164,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,677,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          348,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,364
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,319,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,677,522
<SALES>                                        319,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               319,028
<CGS>                                          305,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,752,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,483,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,483,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,483,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50440 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. NORBERTO AQUINO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:12-CR-10-1

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * For the first time on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Norberto Aquino-Lopez asserts that his 60-month guidelines sentence for illegal reentry is substantively unreasonable. Aquino-Lopez contends that, in setting his sentence, the district court failed to recognize that illegal reentry is a non-violent offense, that he committed th e o f

f e n s e for the comprehensible reason of seeking to avoid gang involvement and violence in El Salvador, and that he plans to move to Spain to avoid further illegal reentry offenses. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary28 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-50440 Document: 00512126742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2013No. 12-50440

Although we ordinarily r eview sentences for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we review here for plain error b ecause AquinoLopez did not object to his sentence. See United States v. Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir

. 2 0 0 7)

. Although he disagrees that such an objection is necessary to preserve error, Aquino-Lopez recognizes that we have ruled otherwise and raises the issue only to preserve it for further review. See Peltier , 505 F.3d at 391

- 9 2

. Similarly, he asserts that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to his sent e n c e b e cause the illegal reentry guideline is not supported by empirical data or n ational experience, but recognizes that this argument is foreclosed as well. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 20 09). The district court here implicitly adopted the present e nce report, which described Aquino-Lopez’s personal history and characteri stics. The court also heard Aquino-Lopez’s arguments for a below-guidelines sentence as well as his allocution. After conside ri n g th e presentence report, the Guidelines, and Aquino-Lopez’s personal circumstances, the district court determined that a 60- month sentence was appropri at e . Aquino-Lopez has failed to show that his presumptively reasonable sente n c e does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, that it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or that it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-50440 Document: 00512126742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2013
### §3732. Applicability of this subchapter

This subchapter applies only to the Reserve; except that it does not apply to a temporary member of the Reserve.

(Added Pub. L. 96–322, §1, Aug. 4, 1980, 94 Stat. 1007, §721; renumbered §3732, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §118(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4233.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 771 of this title prior to the complete revision of former chapter 21 of this title by Pub. L. 96–322.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 721 of this title as this section.
§ 100.54 Compensation for personal services. The payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose, except for legal and accounting services provided under 11 CFR 100.85 and 100.86, is a contribution. No compensation is considered paid to any employee under any of the following conditions: ( a ) *Paid on an hourly or salaried basis.* If an employee is paid on an hourly or salaried basis and is expected to work a particular number of hours per period, no contribution results if the employee engages in political activity during what would otherwise be a regular work period, provided that the taken or released time is made up or completed by the employee within a reasonable time.
( b ) *Paid on commission or piecework basis.* No contribution results where an employee engages in political activity during what would otherwise be normal working hours if the employee is paid on a commission or piecework basis, or is paid only for work actually performed and the employee's time is considered his or her own to use as he or she sees fit.
( c ) *Vacation or earned leave time.* No contribution results where the time used by the employee to engage in political activity is bona fide, although compensable, vacation time or other earned leave time.
[67 FR 50585, Aug. 5, 2002, as amended at 81 FR 34863, June 1, 2016]
#### § 557.24 Appeals; how made.

An appeal from a decision of any Program employee is to be made as provided by 9 CFR 327.24.
§ 89.5 Feeding pens. ( a ) Stock pens and other enclosures for feeding, watering, and resting livestock in transit should have ( 1 ) sufficient space for all of the livestock to lie down at the same time,
( 2 ) properly designed facilities for feeding and watering the livestock,
( 3 ) reasonably well-drained, clean, and safe floors of concrete, cinders, gravel, hard-packed earth, or other suitable material, and
( 4 ) suitable protection from weather reasonably to be expected in the region in which the pens are located.
( b ) Care should be taken to protect livestock unloaded en route at a point having marked difference in temperature from that at the point from which they were shipped.
### §2703. Contingent expenses

The Commandant may expend for contingencies of the Coast Guard a sum not to exceed $50,000 in any one fiscal year.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 532, §476; Pub. L. 108–293, title II, §219, Aug. 9, 2004, 118 Stat. 1039; renumbered §2703, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §15k (Apr. 20, 1939, ch. 75, 53 Stat. 582).

The limitation on the amount for such contingencies is increased, and the amount is made available to the Commandant rather than solely to the Superintendent of the Academy as now prescribed by law. The authorization is to cover expenditures incident to the offices of the Commandant and the Superintendent of the Academy. The intent is that the amount authorized will be administered in a manner similar to that now employed by the Superintendent of the Academy under the authority of 14 U.S.C., §15k. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2703 was renumbered section 4903 of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 476 of this title as this section.

2004—Pub. L. 108–293 substituted "$50,000" for "$7,500" and struck out at end "The Commandant may authorize the Superintendent of the Academy to expend not to exceed $2,500 of this amount for contingencies of the Academy."