alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7870]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Correction; Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Standard 
Criteria for Agricultural and Urban Water Management Plans

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of correction.

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

SUMMARY: On March 25, 2011, the Bureau of Reclamation published a 
notice in the Federal Register at 76 FR 16818 on the Central Valley 
Project Improvement Act Standard Criteria for Agricultural and Urban 
Water Management Plans. In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the 
Web site in which to view copies of the finalized Criteria was 
incorrect. It should read: http://www.usbr.gov/mp.watershare/news/2011_standard_criteria.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melissa Crandell, Bureau of 
Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-410, Sacramento, California 95825, 
916-978-5208, or e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#34595746555a5051585874414756461a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e535d4c5f505a5b52527e4b4d5c4c10595148">[email protected]</span></a>.

Richard J. Woodley,
Regional Resources Manager, Mid-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-7870 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### WALSH, Respondent, v. CASEY, Appellant.

(264 N. W. 821.)

(File No. 7851.

Opinion filed February 7, 1936.)

*John N.*Weber, of Watertown, for Appellant.

/. *G.*McFarland, of Watertown, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In the above-entitled action a certified copy of the notice of appeal and of the undertaking on appeal was filed with the clerk of this court on the 10th day of June, 1935. Since said date no brief or other paper of any kind has been filed herein, nor have any other steps in the prosecution of said appeal been taken. Therefore said appeal is deemed to have been abandoned, and the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

All Judges concurring.
### §3446. New trial—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Granting of new trial, grounds, and motion, Rule 33.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 832.)
1 

INDEX TO DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0646 

Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan; California; Interstate 

Transport Requirements for 2006 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(October 2014) 

FINAL RULE

CATEGORY A RULEMAKING DOCUMENTS

1. Final Rule, “Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan; California; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 2006 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63536). 

 

2. Final Rule, “Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan; California; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 2006 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” signed September 29, 2014 (pre-publication 

version). 

CATEGORY B FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES 

1. 58 FR 51735, “Executive Order 12866,” October 4, 1993. 

2. 59 FR 7629, “Executive Order 12898,” February 16, 1994. 

3. 62 FR 19885, “Executive Order 13045,” April 23, 1997. 

4. 64 FR 43255, “Executive Order 13132,” August 10, 1999. 

5. 65 FR 67249, “Executive Order 13175,” November 9, 2000. 

6. 66 FR 28355, “Executive Order 13211,” May 22, 2001. 

7. 71 FR 61144, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,” October 

17, 2006. 

8. 75 FR 32673, “Finding of Failure To Submit Section 110 State Implementation Plans for 

Interstate Transport for the 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine 

Particulate Matter,” June 9, 2010. 
2 

CATEGORY C OTHER DOCUMENTS 

1. Letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board to 

Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, July 7, 2009. 

2. Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,” September 25, 2009. 

3. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit Court, August 21, 2012. 

4. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 12-6472, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California, December 21, 2012. 

5. Multi-pollutant infrastructure state implementation plan (SIP) submittal from California 

Air Resources Board to U.S. EPA Region IX, “California Infrastructure SIP,” March 6, 

2014. 

6. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 12-1182, U.S. Supreme Court, certiorari 

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, April 29, 2014. 

7. Letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, July 18, 2014.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-1105 

________________________________________________________________________ 

JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE 

Cooperation 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ESTONIA 

Signed at Washington September 29, 2008 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ESTONIA 

Judicial Assistance: Cooperation 

Agreement signed at Washington September 29, 2008; 

 Entered into force November 5, 2008.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY

 417.70

 416.67

 415.79

 414.78

 414.69

 414.62

 414.46

 414.37

 414.28

 414.19

 414.10

 414.01

 413.93

 413.82

 413.73

 413.66

 413.57

 413.47

 413.37

 413.28

 412.83

 412.37

 411.91

 411.45

 411.34

 411.25

 410.89

 409.94

 409.49

 409.36

 409.27

 670,547

 661,583

 653,960

 645,252

 644,478

 643,876

 642,502

 641,729

 640,957

 640,185

 639,414

 638,643

 637,957

 637,016

 636,245

 635,647

 634,877

 634,022

 633,168

 632,400

 628,563

 624,650

 620,747

 616,852

 615,922

 615,161

 612,123

 604,132

 600,361

 599,273

 598,520

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL November 5, 2012

DAILY OPERATIONS

AUGUST 2012 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS -79,371 0 17,273 27,456

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

-7,344

-8,964

-7,623

-8,708

-774

-602

-1,374

-773

-772

-772

-771

-771

-686

-941

-771

-598

-770

-855

-854

-768

-3,837

-3,913

-3,903

-3,895

-930

-761

-3,038

-7,991

-3,771

-1,088

-753

 531

 532

 514

 530

 477

 485

 536

 536

 626

 635

 604

 536

 602

 567

 562

 577

 599

 570

 525

 572

 594

 589

 576

 438

 576

 576

 571

 575

 560

 551

 551

-651

2,292

672

-579

-611

-538

51

-643

-692

-697

-679

-642

-640

-735

-656

-724

-676

-698

4,327

-660

3,393

3,357

3,355

1,435

1,265

2,341

2,390

510

5,414

4,317

2,858

ELEV STORAGE

 0

 168,406

 170,698

 171,370

 170,791

 170,180

 169,642

 169,693

 169,050

 168,358

 167,661

 166,982

 166,340

 165,700

 164,965

 164,309

 163,585

 162,909

 162,211

 166,538

 165,878

 169,271

 172,628

 175,983

 177,418

 178,683

 181,024

 183,414

 183,924

 189,338

 193,655

 196,513

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 169,057

0

3,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5,000

0

4,000

4,000

4,000

2,000

2,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

6,000

5,000

3,500

47,500
(No. 78-CC-1851

#### Harold Berman, Claimant, *v.*State Of Illinois, Respondent

*Opinion filed February 26, 1979.*

Per Curiam.

The record in this cause indicated the purpose of the expenditure by the Illinois Department of Revenue for which this claim was filed was for reimbursing the Department of Revenue auditor for 15 percent premium *897pay for out-of-state travel for period June 1 through 15, 1978, and that the Attorney General has submitted a stipulation by Respondent based upon information forwarded to his office by said Department, as evidenced by the departmental report attached to the stipulation by Respondent.

Accordingly, this Court finds that this was a properly authorized expenditure at prices reasonable, usual and customary in the area where received. No part of this expenditure has been paid and the total outstanding is $34.12. Money was appropriated under appropriation and fund number 001-49212-1120, of which appropriation $17,582.56 lapsed and was returned to the State Treasury.

The sole reason said claim was not paid is due to the lapse of the appropriation for the period during which the debt was incurred.

It is hereby ordered that the Claimant, Harold Berman, be and is hereby awarded, in full satisfaction of any and all claims presented to the State of Illinois under the above captioned cause, the sum of $34.12.
§ 694.10 What are the requirements that a Partnership must meet in designating a fiscal agent for its project under this program? Although any member of a Partnership may organize the project, a Partnership must designate as the fiscal agent for its project under GEAR UP— ( a ) A local educational agency; or
( b ) An institution of higher education.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-22)
[65 FR 24760, Apr. 27, 2000. Redesignated at 75 FR 65798, Oct. 26, 2010; 85 FR 49828, Aug. 14, 2020]
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 23, 2011 | By: /s/ Cery B. Perle                                                                                                                |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | Cery B. PerlePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal executive officer, principal financialand accounting officer) |
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00085

- CV

COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

SMITHVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 53rd District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. D

- 1

- GN

- 17

- 004070

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Moseley

, * JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

_______________________________ *Bailey C. Moseley, Retired, Sitting by Assignment2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed with this Court an agreed motion to set aside the trial court’s

judgment out of Travis County, 1 without regard to the merits and remand this case to the trial court

for disposition in accordance with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. The parties

represent to this Court that they have reached a full and final settlement. In such a case , no real

controversy exists, and in the absence of a controversy, the appeal is moot.

We grant the motion. We set aside the judgment of the trial court without regard to the

merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in acco rdance with the

parties’ settlement agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

We dismiss the appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 3 , 2019

Date Decided: January 4 , 2019

1 Originally appealed to the T hird Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court

pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware of

any conflict between precedent of the T hird Court of Appea ls and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5159 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include home energy audits 

in the nonbusiness energy property credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2019 

Ms. MOORE (for herself, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. 

SA ́NCHEZ, Mr. BEYER, Mr. HORSFORD, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. EVANS, Mr. 

GOMEZ, Mr. BLUMENAUER, and Mr. DOGGETT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 

home energy audits in the nonbusiness energy property 

credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Empowering Home5 owners Energy Efficiency Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HOME ENERGY AUDITS IN NONBUSI7 NESS ENERGY PROPERTY CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 25C(a) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5159 IH

1 the end of paragraph (1), by striking the period at the 

2 end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding 

3 at the end the following new paragraph: 

4 ‘‘(3) 30 percent of the amount paid or incurred 

5 by the taxpayer during the taxable year for home en6 ergy audits.’’. 

7 (b) LIMITATION.—Section 25C(b) of such Code is 

8 amended adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(4) HOME ENERGY AUDITS.—The amount of 

10 the credit allowed under this section by reason of 

11 subsection (a)(3) shall not exceed $150.’’. 

12 (c) DEFINITION OF HOME ENERGY AUDIT.—Section 

13 25C of such Code is amended by redesignating subsections 

14 (e), (f), and (g), as subsections (f), (g), and (h), respec15 tively, and by inserting after subsection (d) the following 

16 new subsection: 

17 ‘‘(e) HOME ENERGY AUDITS.—For purposes of this 

18 section, the term ‘home energy audit’ means an inspection 

19 and written report with respect to a dwelling unit located 

20 in the United States and owned or used by the taxpayer 

21 as the taxpayer’s principal residence (within the meaning 

22 of section 121) which— 

23 ‘‘(1) identifies the most significant and cost-ef24 fective energy efficiency improvements with respect 

25 to such dwelling unit, including an estimate of the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5159 IH

1 energy and cost savings with respect to each such 

2 improvement, and 

3 ‘‘(2) is conducted and prepared by a home en4 ergy auditor that meets the certification or other re5 quirements specified by the Secretary (after con6 sultation with the Secretary of Energy, and not later 

7 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

8 this subsection) in regulations or other guidance.’’. 

9 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

10 1016(a)(33) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 

11 25C(f)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 25C(g)’’. 

12 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

14 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### § 675.42 Allocation and reallocation.

The Secretary allocates and reallocates funds based on each institution's approved request for Federal funds for the Work-Colleges program as a percent of the total of such approved requests for all applicant institutions.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2756b)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                           CONSENT OF MOSS ADAMS, LLP,
                  INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements (Form S-8, Nos. 333-143652 and 333-61876) of our report
dated April 17, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of RadNet, Inc. and affiliates included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.


                                                /s/ Moss Adams LLP
                                                ------------------


Los Angeles, California
March 31, 2008
(No. 74-CC-299

#### Memorial Hospital, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 11, 1974.*

Brown, Hay & Stephens, Attorneys for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
EXHIBIT 23.1 Consent of Robert Early & Company, P.C.










CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Form S 8
Registration Statement No. 333 115285 regarding the Stock Compensation Plan
of KleenAir Systems, Inc. of our report on the audited financial statements
of the Company dated March 31, 2005 which is being included in the annual
report on Form 10 KSB of KleenAir Systems, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2004.




 /s/ ROBERT EARLY & COMPANY, P.C.
Robert Early & Company, P.C.

Abilene, Texas
April 13, 2005






























                                EXHIBIT 23.1



















                                EXHIBIT 23.1
[4910-I3-P)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA nON

Federal Aviation Administration

OUTING S~M80L

oun"(; SYM60l

AtJPl-I2.QS Pif 5:A

f'w<G flF

"Z IS/tOIO

,-

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

747-100B, 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400F, and 747SP series

Rolls-Royce RB211-524 Series Engines

airplanes. This AD requires repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current

inspections oftlle forward and aft sides of the strut front spar chord for cracks and

747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400F, and 747SP Series Airplanes Equipped with

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model

.;x 14 CFR ParI 39 00Lj/ ,~~\I

fl,~ (Docket No. FAA-2010-++++j Directorate Identifier 2010-I\TM-130-AD;Amendmen wtW'lDt'I

,,\6~*; AD *'i'-:2 0l()- r Y- Dq "&1cj-IO

RIN 2120-AA64 I

Ainvorthincss Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100B, 747-200B,

fractures at each strut location, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from ,tb p

reports of cracks and fractures in the nacelie strLitfront spar chord assembly. We are

issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and ~ractures of the nacelle strut front spar

I

chord assembly. Fracture of the front spar chord assembly could lead to loss of the strut

upper link load path and consequent fracture of the diagonal brace, which could result in

in-flight separation of the strut and engine from the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION [N THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

-ICQ

o
1491O-13-PJ

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

-Ot<Cl)RR~~CES

OuTING SYMBOl.

flIJi'C)-1\ cj

[NlTIJll.Si$l(;

{Docket No. FAA-10lO-++++; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-130-AD; Amcndmcn u.,)Hr.ol5.{:()

39-**; AD **J

RIN 2120-AA64

Ainvorthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747wlOOB, 747-200B,

747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400F, and 747SP Series Airplanes Equipped with

Rolls-Royce RR211 fiS24 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new ainvorthiness directive (AD) for'certain Model

747,100B, 747-200B, 747-200F, 747,300, 747-400, 747-400F, and 747SP series

airplanes. This AD requires repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current

inspections of the forward and aft sides of the strilt front spar chord for cracks and

A1J,"-ll[f~;'P

INlTIAlSlPft

'"

, //S/"'.

ROuTING SYM80l

AIJ~ -12QS fLf

3~Arc;;r pu:

7} /5/.010

OU""9 Symbol

ScI1-Ptt

lNmALS/S1G

/.,10

Oi)llNG SYMBOL

fractures at each strut location, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from J7D" '

,NmAlS/SIG

reports of cracks and fractures in the nacelle stru~ front spar chord assembly. We are

upper link load path and consequent fracture of the diagonal brace, which could result in

in-Hight separation of the strut and engine from the airplane.

ROU"fl"G S MBOl

DATES: This AD is effective [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

OUTING SYMBOL

tmlAt5(SIG