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

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2003-16081; Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-73] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Kingman, KS.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, April 15, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2525.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68506). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on April 15, 2004. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 15, 2004.

Elizabeth S. Wallis,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 04-2185  Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### §403b. Lease of restricted lands in State of Washington

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, with the consent in writing of the individual Indian, association of Indians, or Indian tribe concerned, any restricted Indian lands situated within the State of Washington may be leased for religious, educational, recreational, business, or public purposes, including, but not limited to, airports, experimental station, stockyards, warehouses, and grain elevators, for periods not to exceed twenty-five years under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe: Provided, That nothing in this section or section 403c of this title shall be deemed to authorize such leases for the exploitation of any natural resources.

(Aug. 9, 1946, ch. 929, §1, 60 Stat. 962.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1393

ZACHARIE K. KENGNE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SALLY STRING; ELIZABETH (Owner of Liz Hair Design), 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-00712-AW) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Zacharie K. Kengne, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Zacharie K. Kengne appeals a district court order 

dismissing his complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the 

record and agree with the district court that Kengne’s complaint 

and his other filings are difficult to distill and do not 

contain a claim under the constitution, laws or treaties of the 

United States. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 

We 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. 

DISMISSED
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 HIGH

 342

 264

 309

 326

 355

 278

 298

 463

 494

 525

 515

 465

 456

 450

 396

 399

 390

 378

 369

 390

 371

 363

 376

 368

 391

 376

 370

 399

 402

 374

 427

 219

 217

 213

 211

 211

 215

 231

 280

 293

 319

 335

 332

 327

 327

 328

 327

 326

 325

 330

 322

 327

 324

 324

 321

 314

 313

 321

 328

 338

 338

 346

 239

 232

 237

 235

 239

 231

 264

 318

 337

 356

 361

 357

 355

 351

 341

 342

 341

 343

 345

 342

 342

 339

 337

 330

 330

 331

 334

 341

 347

 348

 358

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 7, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 14550A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5446

Mr. Ronald E. Looney

Advanced Aviation Solutions

Counsel for Cenpac Images LLC

10394 West Lanktree Gulch Road

Star, ID 83669

Dear Mr. Looney:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public docket on July 22, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Cenpac Images LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) 

for an amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 

61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You 

requested an amendment to change the company name from Cenpec Images LLC to Cenpac 

Images LLC.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 14550

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 
2

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Cenpac Images LLC is hereafter referred to as the operator. All 

conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 14550 remain in effect. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            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  Foresight  Specialists,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin Ericksteen,  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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                                   /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                   --------------------------
Date: March 15, 2005                                   Kevin Ericksteen
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL SCOTT MCRAE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00094-H-6)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 12, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Scott McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Scott McRae appeals the district court’s order

finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. McRae, No. 5:97-cr00094-H-6 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 2009). We deny McRae’s motion to 

hold his appeal in abeyance and 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 2565.0-7 Cross reference.

Townsites in Alaska may be reserved by the President and sold as provided for in sections 2380 and 2381 of the Revised Statutes; 43 U.S.C. 711, 712. The regulations governing these townsites are contained in §§ 2760.0-3 and 2761.3.
#### Helene Pagenstecher, Appellant, v. Alma Carlson, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ.
#### § 2568.30 What terms do I need to know to understand these regulations?

*Alaska Native* is defined in the Native Allotment Act of 1906 as amended by the Act of August 2, 1956, 70 Stat. 954.

*Allotment* has the same meaning as in 43 CFR 2561.0-5(b).

*Conservation System Unit* has the same meaning as under Sec. 102(4) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980, 16 U.S.C. 3102(4).

*Consistent and inconsistent* mean compatible and incompatible, respectively, in accordance with the guidelines in these regulations in §§ 2568.102 through 2568.106.

*Veteran* has the same meaning as in 38 U.S.C. 101, paragraph 2.
§ 664.215 Must youth participants be registered to participate in the youth program? ( a ) Yes, all youth participants must be registered.
( b ) Registration is the process of collecting information to support a determination of eligibility.
( c ) Equal opportunity data must be collected during the registration process on any individual who has submitted personal information in response to a request by the recipient for such information.
§ 2524.1 Conditions excusing entrymen from compliance with the desert-land laws. ( a ) By section 5 of the Act of June 27, 1906 (34 Stat. 520, 43 U.S.C. 448), it is provided that any desert-land entryman who has been or may be directly or indirectly hindered or prevented from making improvements on or from reclaiming the lands embraced in his entry, by reason of the fact that such lands have been embraced within the exterior limits of any withdrawal under the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. 372 *et seq.*) will be excused during the continuance of such hindrance from complying with the provisions of the desert-land laws.
( b ) *Persons excused from compliance with the desert-land laws.* Section 5 of the Act of June 27, 1906, applies only to persons who have been, directly or indirectly, delayed or prevented, by the creation of any reclamation project, or by any withdrawal of public lands under the reclamation law, from improving or reclaiming the lands covered by their entries.
( c ) *Statement required to warrant excuse.* No entryman will be excused under this act from a compliance with all of the requirements of the desert-land law until he has filed in the proper office for the district in which his lands are situated a statement showing in detail all of the facts upon which he claims the right to be excused. This statement must show when the hindrance began, the nature, character, and extent of the same, and it must be corroborated by two disinterested persons, who can testify from their own personal knowledge.
### §443b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 443b was editorially reclassified as a note under section 1457 of Title 43, Public Lands.

Section was formerly classified to section 93 of Title 45, Railroads.
§ 2569.801 What can I do if I disagree with any of the Decisions that are made about my allotment application? ( a ) You may appeal all Decisions to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR part 4.
( b ) On appeals of Decisions made pursuant to § 2569.502(b): ( 1 ) Unless the BLM's decision is stayed on appeal pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21, the BLM will continue to process the conflicting applications that received preference over your application.
( 2 ) Within 60 days of receiving a decision on the appeal, the losing applicant may exercise one of the two options to select a substitute parcel pursuant to § 2569.502(b).
( c ) On appeals of Decisions which reject the application or of a decision made pursuant to § 2569.503(a): ( 1 ) Unless the BLM's decision is stayed on appeal pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21, the BLM will lift the segregation of your selection and the land will be available for all future entries.
( 2 ) If you win the appeal and the decision was not stayed, your selection will be considered received as of the date of the Interior Board of Land Appeals decision for purposes of preference under § 2569.502(a).

Group 2600—Disposition; Grants
§ 2.53 How will the bureau collect fees owed? ( a ) The bureau may charge interest on any unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the billing date.
( b ) The bureau will assess interest charges at the rate provided in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and implementing regulations and interest will accrue from the billing date until the bureau receives payment.
( c ) The bureau will follow the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749), as amended, and its administrative procedures, including the use of consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies, and offset to collect overdue amounts and interest.
( d ) This section does not apply if you are a state, local, or tribal government.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsQualitative Future Safety Risk Identification an UpdateThe purpose of this report is to document the results of a high-level qualitative study that was conducted to identify future aviation safety risks and to assess the potential impacts to the National Airspace System (NAS) of NASA Aviation Safety research on these risks. Multiple external sources (for example, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Flight Safety Foundation, the National Research Council, and the Joint Planning and Development Office) were used to develop a compilation of future safety issues risks, also referred to as future tall poles. The primary criterion used to identify the most critical future safety risk issues was that the issue must be cited in several of these sources as a safety area of concern. The tall poles in future safety risk, in no particular order of importance, are as follows: Runway Safety, Loss of Control In Flight, Icing Ice Detection, Loss of Separation, Near Midair Collision Human Fatigue, Increasing Complexity and Reliance on Automation, Vulnerability Discovery, Data Sharing and Dissemination, and Enhanced Survivability in the Event of an Accident.Document ID20170005890Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBarr, Lawrence C.*(Federal Aviation Administration Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 29, 2017Publication DateJune 1, 2017Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/CR-2017-219491GRC-E-DAA-TN38560E-19359Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 999182.01.50.03.03CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC13IA05IDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsfuture aviation safety riskAvailable DownloadsNameType20170005890.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors

Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference of our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated August 6,2010 on the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2009 and2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensiveloss, shareholders’ equity (deficiency), and cash flows for the three yearperiod ended December 31, 2009 included in this Form 10-K, into theCompany’s previously filed S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-101447).

 

 
| /s/ Choi, Kim, Park, LLP |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Los Angeles, California  |   |
| August 20, 2010     |   |

 

----
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 ELEV

 130.08

 129.71

 129.99

 129.95

 129.93

 129.93

 129.67

 129.52

 129.42

 129.30

 129.28

 129.21

 129.66

 130.40

 130.45

 129.97

 129.98

 130.44

 130.35

 130.23

 130.12

 130.13

 130.11

 130.33

 130.08

 130.73

 130.56

 130.41

 130.05

 130.14

 130.27

 589

 552

 580

 576

 573

 573

 548

 533

 524

 512

 510

 504

 547

 623

 628

 578

 579

 627

 618

 604

 593

 594

 592

 615

 589

 659

 640

 624

 586

 595

 609

STORAGE

-11

-37

+28

-4

-3

+0

-25

-15

-9

-12

-2

-6

+43

+76

+5

-50

+1

+48

-9

-14

-11

+1

-2

+23

-26

+70

-19

-16

-38

+9

+14

CHANGE

76

81

95

87

84

113

73

88

84

84

90

93

119

133

86

65

80

197

509

1,061

204

144

403

804

425

589

288

230

206

145

136

INFLOW

 27

 37

 26

 26

 26

 60

 66

 26

 26

 26

 26

 27

 27

 27

 27

 40

 27

 122

 473

 1,068

 141

 65

 354

 757

 381

 511

 230

 170

 159

 74

 66

PUTAH

 55

 62

 55

 63

 60

 53

 20

 70

 63

 64

 65

 69

 70

 68

 56

 50

 52

 51

 41

 0

 69

 78

 50

 35

 57

 43

 68

 68

 65

 65

 62

PUTAH

 0

 1

 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

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .11

 .15

 .04

 .08

 .09

 .09

 .13

 .14

 .11

 .10

 .06

 .14

 .14

 .04

 .08

 .04

 .12

 .11

 .03

 .00

 .08

 .11

 .07

 .08

 .00

 .00

 .07

 .06

 .15

 .21

 .22

INCHES

 .00

 .61

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .80

 .60

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .50

 .02

 .24

 .00

 .07

 .97

 2.00

 .56

 .00

 1.01

 .58

 1.31

 .81

 .21

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2011 RUN DATE: 04/25/2011

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +9 6,872 1,747 5,118 4 2.85 10.31

ACRE-FEET +9 13,631 3,465 10,152 8

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 10,152

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 3,465

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 10.31

JULY 1, 2010 29.83

 600

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
#### Jennie Martinico, Plaintiff, v. Clarence C. Felter et al., Defendants. Bert C. Fuller, Purchaser-Appellant.

Appeal by the purchaser at the sale on foreclosure of a tax lien from an order denying his application, under section 985 of the Civil Practice Act, for an order directing the sheriff to put him into possession of the premises, without prejudice to renewal upon obtaining a certificate from the temporary city housing rent commission. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See 274 App. Div. 801.]
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

 397

 418

 461

 542

 612

 631

 640

 641

 648

 679

 715

 719

 749

 750

 757

 757

 767

 807

 818

 805

 732

 729

 727

 755

 748

 727

 727

 753

 756

 701

 357

 381

 417

 465

 545

 612

 573

 596

 618

 613

 667

 692

 715

 743

 736

 740

 719

 761

 793

 727

 671

 648

 705

 692

 676

 676

 680

 720

 687

 642

 383

 407

 435

 498

 582

 621

 625

 628

 639

 655

 696

 707

 732

 746

 749

 749

 747

 786

 802

 777

 712

 707

 717

 731

 718

 714

 709

 732

 735

 685

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 1, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 12,618

 12,438

 12,306

 12,224

 12,274

 12,336

 12,469

 12,692

 12,947

 13,235

 13,579

 13,912

 14,236

 14,522

 14,760

 14,980

 15,238

 15,594

 15,995

 16,371

 16,673

 16,991

 17,342

 17,710

 18,112

 18,509

 18,917

 19,346

 19,770

 20,124

 421

 415

 410

 407

 409

 411

 416

 423

 432

 441

 453

 464

 475

 484

 492

 499

 508

 520

 533

 546

 556

 566

 578

 590

 604

 617

 631

 645

 659

 671

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER