alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8583]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Amendment To Extend the Term of the Existing Enhanced-Use Lease 
(EUL) at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Michael E. DeBakey VA 
Medical Center (VAMC) in Houston, TX

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Enter into an Amendment to Extend the Term 
of a Current Enhanced-Use Lease.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of VA intends to enter into an amendment to 
extend the term of the existing EUL with Amelang Partners, LLC (lessee) 
at the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas. VA proposes to extend 
the term of the existing lease from 35 years to 75 years. The lessee 
will continue to lease approximately 8.18 acres of land at the VAMC, 
and finance, design, develop, construct, operate, manage, and maintain 
a mixed-use facility on the VAMC campus. In return for VA granting the 
EUL extension, the lessee will (a) convey to VA an approximately 7.64 
acre parking lot currently serving VA, and (b) at commencement of the 
40-year extension, pay VA fair market value of the aforementioned 8.18 
acres of land, based on an appraisal of the underlying land and 
improvements. The lessee shall bear full financial and legal 
responsibility to redevelop and maintain the property as a mixed-use 
property at no cost to VA. VA plans to use the additional lease 
consideration from the anticipated 40-year lease extension to serve 
Veterans at the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward L. Bradley, Office of Asset 
Enterprise Management (044), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 38 U.S.C. 8161 et seq., specifically 
provides that the Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease if he 
determines that the implementation of a business plan proposed by the 
Under Secretary for Health for applying the consideration under such a 
lease to the provision of medical care and services would result in a 
demonstrable improvement of services to eligible Veterans in the 
geographic service-delivery area within which the property is located. 
This project meets this requirement.

    Approved: March 17, 2011.
John R. Gingrich,
Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-8583 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```
§ 9.55 Bell Mountain. ( a ) *Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Bell Mountain.”
( b ) *Approved map.* The appropriate map for determining the boundaries of the Bell Mountain viticultural area is one U.S.G.S. map, titled: Willow City Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series, 1967.
( c ) *Boundary* — ( 1 ) *General.* The Bell Mountain viticultural area is located in Gillespie County, Texas. The starting point of the following boundary description is the summit of Bell Mountain (1,956 feet).
( 2 ) *Boundary Description.* ( i ) From the starting point, the boundary proceeds due southward for exactly one half mile;
( ii ) Then southeastward in a straight line to the intersection of Willow City Loop Road with an unnamed unimproved road, where marked with an elevation of 1,773 feet;
( iii ) Then generally southward along Willow City Loop Road (a light-duty road) to Willow City.
( iv ) Then continuing southward and westward along the same light-duty road to the intersection having an elevation of 1,664 feet;
( v ) Then continuing westward along the light-duty road to the intersection having an elevation of 1,702 feet;
( vi ) Then turning southward along the light-duty road to the intersection having an elevation of 1,736 feet;
( vii ) Then turning westward along the light-duty road to the intersection having an elevation of 1,784 feet;
( viii ) Then turning southward and then westward, following the light-duty road to its intersection with Texas Highway 16, where marked with an elevation of 1,792 feet;
( ix ) Then due westward to the longitude line 98°45′;
( x ) Then northward along that longitude line to a point due west of an unnamed peak with an elevation of 1,784 feet;
( xi ) Then due eastward to the summit of that unnamed peak;
( xii ) Then in a straight line eastward to the intersection of an unnamed unimproved road with Texas Highway 16, where marked with an elevation of 1,822 feet;
( xiii ) Then following that unnamed road, taking the right-hand fork at an intersection, to a point due west of the summit of Bell Mountain;
( xiv ) Then due eastward to the summit of Bell Mountain.
[T.D. ATF-238, 51 FR 36400, Oct. 10, 1986]
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Dejour Energy Inc. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, David Matheson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | /s/
      David Matheson                  
| | ------------------------------------------
| | David Matheson                            
| | Chief Financial Officer                   
| | Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
| | April 21, 2015                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350 and is not being filed as part of the annual report or as a separate
disclosure document.

---
Exhibit 99.13

                       GE CAPITAL MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.
            OFFICERS' ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE - SERIES 1999-13

         The undersigned,  Vice Presidents of GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.
(the "Servicer"), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the Series
1999-13 REMIC Multi-Class Mortgage  Pass-Through  Certificates (the "Agreement")
entered into by GE Capital Mortgage Services,  Inc., as Seller and Servicer, and
State Street Bank and Trust Company,  as Trustee,  which  Agreement  requires an
annual  statement of  compliance  to be made to the Trustee by an officer of the
Servicer, hereby state that:

         (i)      a  review  of  the  activities  of  the  Servicer  during  the
                  preceding  calendar  year  and of its  performance  under  the
                  Agreement  has  been  made  under  the  undersigned  officers'
                  supervision; and

         (ii)     to the best of the undersigned  officers' knowledge,  based on
                  such review,  the Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its material
                  obligations  under the Agreement  throughout such year, except
                  as set forth on Exhibit A hereto.

Capitalized  terms used  herein but not  defined  herein  shall have the meaning
given to them in the Agreement.

Dated:            March 24, 2000

By:      /s/ Gregory A. Gibson
------------------------------
         Gregory A. Gibson
         Senior Vice President

By:      /s/ Tim Neer
------------------------------
         Tim Neer
         Vice President

<PAGE>
                                    EXHIBIT A





                                      None
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Francisco Annunziato

*Alfonse C. Fasano,*in support of the motions.

Submitted August 14

decided September 23, 1970

The motions by the defendant to modify the orders of the Superior Court in New Haven County fixing the amount of hail are denied.
Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC 

f/k/a Anadarko E&P Co. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00152-CV

LIGHTNING OIL CO.,

Appellant

v.

ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC F/K/A ANADARKO E&P CO. LP,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-01-12171-DCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's motion for leave to file supplement to brief is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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

DAY HIGH

 989

 1,009

 1,058

 1,035

 969

 907

 862

 782

 721

 730

 720

 759

 756

 775

 730

 729

 716

 724

 721

 675

 683

 690

 666

 716

 690

 669

 743

 776

 758

 762

 745

 711

 780

 803

 766

 767

 731

 714

 692

 698

 707

 698

 724

 718

 706

 704

 657

 665

 652

 609

 607

 649

 628

 556

 631

 627

 669

 710

 707

 744

 837

 831

 903

 914

 856

 825

 783

 742

 707

 708

 713

 728

 740

 743

 716

 715

 682

 690

 679

 642

 646

 668

 652

 655

 652

 648

 700

 738

 732

 754

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0336
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATES OF MARY JOE FOX and MARK ROBERT FOX, JERRY O'NEIL,

Appellant, v. JEAN FOX, Personally and as Personal Representative ofthe Estates,

Appellee. 

### CEC 2 0 2"22 Pc w n c. n 0urt

ORDER

Jean Fox, Personal Representative of the Appellee Estates, rnoves to strike the revised openingbrieffiled by Appellant Jerry O'Neil,to dismissthis appeal, and to impose sanctions for bringingthis appeal

. In response, O'Neil contendsthat Fox'srnotion tostrike should be struck from the record and that her motion is over-length, according to M. R. App. P. 16(3). O'Neil is appealing a Flathead County District Court Order that granted Fox's motion to remove O'Neil as personal representative ofthe Estates, and to consolidate the estate proceedings ofher rnother and brother. In open court, O'Neil did not object to his removal as personal representative, and the District Court cited his lack of objection in grantingthe motion. However,O'Neil later filed aMotion forReconsideration and Restore Personal Representative alongwith a briefthat was deemed denied after sixty days. O'Neil submitted hisopeningbriefthat thisCourt returnedbecause ofseveral deficiencies. O'Neil re-submitted his opening briefon November 21, 2022, which was accepted for filing. Fox provides extensive history to these two estates to justify her request for dismissal, and contends O'Neil changed, added, or deleted content in his revised, opening brief, in contradiction to this Court's deficiency order, stating O'Neil "added at least one 12/20/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0336hundred twenty-three (123)newpages in exhihits alone." She summarizes in paraphrasing

Shakespeare, that O'Neil "is a poor player ho strutted and fretted his hour upon the state before the district court, yet rather than be heard no more. he chose a different state upon which to set forth his newly rewritten play, one in \vhich he hoped would be better received." Be that as it may, O'Neil's revised brief was accepted for filing when submitted and, consequently, we are not inclined to strike it. And while these probate matters seem acrimonious and protracted, we do not conclude that dismissal ofthe appeal or analysis of the merits for purposes ofother sanctions is appropriate at thisjuncture. We will take up these issues upon analysis ofthe briefing. Further, we expect the parties to comply with the Rules in their filings and arguments, and to avoid excessiveness and dissipation ofthe Court's time and resources, and we will monitor the matter for compliance. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Pleading and Motion to Dismiss and For Sanctions is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all parties. DATED this

## 2b f.)----clay ofDecember, 2022.

did AI .411 1".... Justices

2
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

#### § 70.420 Forms.

For forms to be used, *see* § 70.411(c).

[T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47654, Nov. 14, 1990]
STORAGE - A.F. RESERVOIR CHANGE NEW MELONES NATURAL ACCUM * FULL

Day DONNELLS

RESERVOIR

BEARDSLEY

RESERVOIR

TOTAL A.F. C.F.S. INFLOW C.F.S RIVER C.F.S NATURAL 

1000 A.F.

1 46,847 86,348 133,195 -394 -199 694 495 573.0

2 46,583 86,047 132,630 -565 -285 757 472 573.9

3 46,319 85,767 132,086 -544 -274 773 499 574.9

4 46,116 85,405 131,521 -565 -285 814 529 576.0

5 45,730 85,234 130,964 -557 -281 907 626 577.2

6 45,094 85,323 130,417 -547 -276 1,156 873 578.9

7 44,576 85,268 129,844 -573 -289 818 529 580.0

8 44,046 85,248 129,294 -550 -277 1,004 727 581.4

9 43,765 84,956 128,721 -573 -289 852 563 582.5

10 43,687 84,486 128,173 -548 -276 529 253 583.0

11 43,606 84,005 127,611 -562 -283 506 223 583.5

12 43,251 83,539 126,790 -821 -414 582 168 583.8

13 43,429 83,066 126,495 -295 -149 509 360 584.5

14 43,348 82,602 125,950 -545 -275 492 217 585.0

15 43,178 82,240 125,418 -532 -268 493 225 585.4

16 42,998 81,837 124,835 -583 -294 628 334 586.1

17 42,907 81,382 124,289 -546 -275 467 192 586.4

18 42,822 80,934 123,756 -533 -269 573 304 587.1

19 42,789 80,528 123,317 -439 -221 753 747 588.5

20 42,834 80,143 122,977 -340 -171 -14 -400 587.7

21 42,888 79,652 122,540 -437 -220 11 -209 587.3

22 42,944 79,103 122,047 -493 -249 673 424 588.2

23 42,976 78,259 121,235 -812 -409 664 255 588.7

24 42,991 77,228 120,219 -1,016 -512 835 323 589.3

25 43,017 76,204 119,221 -998 -503 834 331 590.0

26 43,024 75,203 118,227 -994 -501 801 300 590.6

27 43,031 74,176 117,207 -1,020 -514 837 323 591.2

28 43,057 73,148 116,205 -1,002 -505 998 482 592.2

29 43,094 72,069 115,163 -1,042 -525 952 427 593.0

30 43,102 71,134 114,236 -927 -467 1,048 581 594.2

Totals -19,353 11,173

Acre - Feet 22,162

* October 1, 2021 to date

Historical Archive and Report Database

Full Natural Flow At New Melones Dam

 September 2022 

 Run Date: 4/21/2023
#### § 220.39 Disability determination for a surviving divorced spouse or remarried widow(er).

A surviving divorced spouse or a remarried widow(er) must be found disabled under the Social Security Act in order to qualify for both an annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act and early Medicare based upon disability. Disability determinations for surviving divorced spouses and remarried widow(er)s are governed by the applicable regulations of the Social Security Administration, found at § 404.1577 of this title.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 2288** 

LATORY SHANON MIDDLETON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. JOHN EMERSON; KASSI B. SANDIFER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 02535

- DCN )

Submitted : March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Seni or Circuit Judge.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

. Latory Shanon Middleton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lat o ry Shanon Middleton filed a document in the district court th at she captioned “Notice of Removal,” but that otherwise appeared to be a complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of federal law. The document named two individuals as defendant s . The magistrate judge , noting that Middleton was a plaint iff in a pending state proceeding, correctly pointed out that under the applicable federal

statute s , a plaintiff may not remove a proceeding to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(a) (2006). The magistrate judge then observed that , construing Middl eton’s filing as a complaint of employment discrimination under federal law , the filing failed to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies or to name Middleton’s employer as defendant. The magistrate judge therefore recommended dismissing the com plaint without prejudice. Middleton, inform ed of the need to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report, made a timely filing which, although fairly general, did provide some evidence that she may have exhausted administrative remedies. The dist rict court, after a de novo review, adopted the report of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Middleton seeks to appeal.3 Because the deficiencies in the complaint identified by the magistrate judge could be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic tion. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISS ED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7807

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH ERIC COE, JR., a/k/a Junior,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:17-cr-00378-RBH-1; 4:19-cv-02142-RBH)

Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Eric Coe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Eric Coe, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coe has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### § 25.1 How are claims of Federal employees who are neither citizens nor residents adjudicated?

This part describes how OWCP pays compensation under the FECA to employees of the United States who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States, any territory or Canada, as well as to any dependents of such employees. It has been determined that the compensation provided under the FECA is substantially disproportionate to the compensation for disability or death which is payable in similar cases under local law, regulation, custom or otherwise, in areas outside the United States, any territory or Canada and therefore a special schedule should apply to such cases This special schedule applies to any non-citizen non-resident Federal employee who is neither hired nor employed in the United States, Canada or in a possession or territory of the United States. Therefore, with respect to the claims of such employees whose injury (or injury resulting in death) has occurred subsequent to August 29, 2011, or may occur, the regulations in this part shall apply.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,338
<SECURITIES>                                        44
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,008
<ALLOWANCES>                                       162
<INVENTORY>                                        416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,048
<PP&E>                                          49,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,247
<BONDS>                                          7,878
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,009
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,068
<SALES>                                            322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,990
<CGS>                                              563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,337
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,230
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.24<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.24<F2>
<FN>
<F1> REPRESENTS BASIC EPS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128.
<F2> REPRESENTS DILUTED EPS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128.
</FN>


</TABLE>