alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1304.407 Development within flood control storage zones of TVA reservoirs. ( a ) Activities involving development within the flood control storage zone on TVA reservoirs will be reviewed to determine if the proposed activity qualifies as a repetitive action. Under TVA's implementation of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, repetitive actions are projects within a class of actions TVA has determined to be approvable without further review and documentation related to flood control storage, provided the loss of flood control storage caused by the project does not exceed one acre-foot. A partial list of repetitive actions includes: ( 1 ) Private and public water-use facilities;
( 2 ) Commercial recreation boat dock and water-use facilities;
( 3 ) Water intake structures;
( 4 ) Outfalls;
( 5 ) Mooring and loading facilities for barge terminals;
( 6 ) Minor grading and fills; and
( 7 ) Bridges and culverts for pedestrian, highway, and railroad crossings.
( b ) Projects resulting in flood storage loss in excess of one acre-foot will not be considered repetitive actions.
( c ) For projects not qualifying as repetitive actions, the applicant shall be required, as appropriate, to evaluate alternatives to the placement of fill or the construction of a project within the flood control storage zone that would result in lost flood control storage. The alternative evaluation would either identify a better option or support and document that there is no reasonable alternative to the loss of flood control storage. If this determination can be made, the applicant must then demonstrate how the loss of flood control storage will be minimized. ( 1 ) In addition, documentation shall be provided regarding: ( i ) The amount of anticipated flood control storage loss;
( ii ) The cost of compensation of the displaced flood control storage (how much it would cost to excavate material from the flood control storage zone, haul it to an upland site and dispose of it);
( iii ) The cost of mitigation of the displaced flood control storage (how much it would cost to excavate material from another site within the flood control storage zone, haul it to the project site and use as the fill material);
( iv ) The cost of the project; and
( v ) The nature and significance of any economic and/or natural resource benefits that would be realized as a result of the project.
( 2 ) TVA may, in its discretion, decline to permit any project that would result in the loss of flood control storage.
( d ) Recreational vehicles parked or placed within flood control storage zones of TVA reservoirs shall be deemed an obstruction affecting navigation, flood control, or public lands or reservations within the meaning of section 26a of the Act unless they: ( 1 ) Remain truly mobile and ready for highway use. The unit must be on its wheels or a jacking system and be attached to its site by only quick disconnect type utilities;
( 2 ) Have no permanently attached additions, connections, foundations, porches, or similar structures; and
( 3 ) Have an electrical cutoff switch that is located above the flood control zone and fully accessible during flood events.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Martin Delaney Collaboratory: Towards an HIV-1 Cure.                    

*Date:*                         April 4-6, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jay Bruce Sundstrom, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Room 3119, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-7042,                         *sundstromj@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 8, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-5798 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
1 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30940

Summary Calendar

JOSEPH ROUSSELL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ED C. DAY, JR.,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-3429-K

-------------------- March 5, 2002

Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Joseph Roussell, Louisiana prisoner # 119559, was granted a

certificate of appealability to appeal th e district court’s

dismissal as time-barred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising a claim that the reasonable-doubt

jury instruction he received was unconstitutional under C age v.

Louisiana

, 498 U.S. 39 (1990). He essentially argues that his

petition was timely because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C),

the limitations period began to run not from the date his2

conviction became final but from the date Cage was made retroactive

to cases on collateral review.

Roussell can point to no case, Supreme Court or otherwise,

which has held Cage retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review, m eaning that § 2244(d)(1)(C) is inapplicable. Moreover,

even if Cage had been held to be retroactively applicable, under

United States v. Lopez

, 248 F.3d 427, 431-32 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied

, 122 S. Ct. 222 (2001)

, the limitations period began to run

not on the date the retroactivity decision issued but on the date

the Supreme Court announced the Cage rule. Because, like his

conviction, this predated the AEDPA’s enactment date, Roussell had

at most one year from that date, or until April 24, 1997, to file.

See Flanagan v. Johnson

, 154 F.3d 196, 199-200 (5th Cir. 1998).

His petition, filed in October 2000, at the earliest, was thus

untimely, even with the benefit of tolling during the pendency of

his relevant state-court pleadings under § 2244(d)(2).

Roussell has not demonstrated that the district court erred in

dismissing his petition as time-barred. Accordingly, the district

court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.
#### § 550.2 Place of maintenance of records.

The requirements in 9 CFR 320.2 for the place where records are to be maintained apply in the keeping of records under this part.
#### § 99.1 Scope and applicability of rules of practice.

The Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of Agriculture promulgated in subpart H of part 1, subtitle A, title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, are the Rules of Practice applicable to adjudicatory, administrative proceedings under the following statutory provisions:

Act of May 29, 1884, commonly known as the Animal Industry Act, section 7, as amended (21 U.S.C. 117),

Act of August 30, 1890, section 6, as amended (21 U.S.C. 104),

Act of February 2, 1903, commonly known as the Cattle Contagious Diseases Act of 1903, section 3, as amended (21 U.S.C. 122),

Act of July 2, 1962, section 6(a), as amended (21 U.S.C. 134e),

Act of May 6, 1970, section 2, as amended (21 U.S.C. 135a).

The Animal Health Protection Act, section 10414 (7 U.S.C. 8313)

In addition, the Supplemental Rules of Practice set forth in subpart B of this part shall be applicable to such proceedings.

[48 FR 30095, June 30, 1983. Redesignated at 52 FR 29502, Aug. 10, 1987, as amended at 68 FR 6345, Feb. 7, 2003]
# C_2011238EN.01001801.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/18

---

Action brought on 19 April 2011 — J v Parliament

(Case T-160/10)

2011/C 238/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J (Marchtrenk, Austria) (represented by: A. Auer, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010, whereby the applicant’s Petition No 1673/2009 of 19 November 2009 was dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010, whereby the applicant’s Petition No 1673/2009 of 19 November 2009 was dismissed;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010, whereby his petition concerning the alleged confiscation of various documents and works by Austrian officials was dismissed.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that his right to the admission of his petition has been infringed. The confiscation of the works by the Austrian authorities constituted an infringement of the right to property under Article 6(1) TFEU and Articles 17(1) and 51(1) of the The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---
16 March 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN

- DCA, Docket No. DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0029.

Dear Secretary LaHood:

The W ORLD TRADE CENTER San Diego ( WTCSD) fully supports the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) . San Diego is the largest region without announced service to DCA

. Additionally, due to the profound community of inte rest between San Diego and the nation’s capital, the region generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to the convenient and close

- in airport serving our nation’s capital

. San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled wi th the fact that San Diego

– Dulles average airfares are the highest of west coast cities should qualify it for a pair of the limited slots available. The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washington’s city center tha t average about $60 each way. This means travelers between Washington’s city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average close to $400 one

- way.

There are also countless other San Diego

- based and Washington

- based businesses that are engaged in he alth science, telecommunications, and national defense that need quick and convenient access to Reagan National Airport. The WTCSD has an immediate need for additional nonstop air service to our nation’s capital. Alaska Airlines service would add a neede d nonstop option to a pri mary gateway to Washington, DC. The WTCSD joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in support of Alaska Air lines’ application for San Diego

– Washington Reagan National slots.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced docket and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego

– DCA prop osal soon.

Sincerely,

Bella Heule President and CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                  35
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          750
<ALLOWANCES>                                             7
<INVENTORY>                                            575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,454
<PP&E>                                                 584
<DEPRECIATION>                                         434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       2,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,488
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                18
<OTHER-SE>                                            (160)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         2,089
<SALES>                                              1,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,710
<CGS>                                                  631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        106
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    106
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           106
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.01



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-13261) pertaining to the UTI Energy Corp. 1993 Non-qualified
Stock Option Plan, the First Amendment to Termination Agreement and Release,
the UTI Energy Corp. Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of our report
dated February 17, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of UTI Energy Corp. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                            Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
March 18, 1998
128 STAT. 2086 PUBLIC LAW 113–213—DEC. 16, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2678: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Sept. 8, 10, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 8, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–213 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10360 

Southwest 186th Street in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Larcenia J. Bullard Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LARCENIA J. BULLARD POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 10360 Southwest 186th Street in Miami, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Larcenia J. Bullard Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Larcenia J. Bullard Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 16, 2014. 

Dec. 16, 2014 

[H.R. 2678] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A184
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS, AND
SCHEDULE II VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS AS OF AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 SHOWN ELSEWHERE IN THIS REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN
IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998 
<CASH>                                         136,369 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,351,691 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   450,000 
<INVENTORY>                                  5,820,013 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,538,215 
<PP&E>                                       3,360,112 
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,495,119 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,001,326 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,699,144 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                        40,002 
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,447,356 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,001,326 
<SALES>                                     58,793,757 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,793,757 
<CGS>                                       47,803,060 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,889,999 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               253,441 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,748,646 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,691,753 
<INCOME-TAX>                                   225,528 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,466,225 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,466,225 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.37 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.36 
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1301.26 Special procedures—medical records.

If, in the judgment of TVA, the transmission of medical records, including psychological records, directly to a requesting individual could have an adverse effect upon such individual, TVA may refuse to disclose such information directly to the individual. TVA will, however, disclose this information to a licensed health care provider or legal representative designated by the individual in writing who should then provide the records to the individual along with any necessary interpretations.

[75 FR 11736, Mar. 12, 2010. Redesignated at 82 FR 51757, Nov. 8, 2017]
### §5414. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–34, §10, June 8, 1999, 113 Stat. 123

Section, Pub. L. 101–592, §15, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2952; Pub. L. 105–234, §1, Aug. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1536, related to applicability of this chapter.
# C_2010234EN.01004601.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/46

---

Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (ANEURYSMCONTROL)

(Case T-280/10)

()

2010/C 234/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1432/2009-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1432/2009-4;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANEURYSMCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.

Pleas in law:

---
''No further benefits may be paid out under this program unless this report is 

completed and filed as required by existing law and regulations 

(7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).

DATE OF INVENTORY

SHEET OF SHEETS

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

PROJECT DESIGNATION

NAME OF ENGINEER

NAME OF CONTRACTOR

FINAL INVENTORY 

TELEPHONE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 

(Labor and Material)

ASSEMBLY UNITS UNIT COST EXTENDED COST

DESIGNATION

STANDARD AND

"N" AND "W" UNITS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL LABOR TOTAL MATERIAL

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

- -

RUS Form 724a (Rev. 4-61)

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0572-0059. The time required to complete this information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.