alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57256-57257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant exclusive license.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant 
Baumgartner Environics, Inc., of Olivia, Minnesota an exclusive license 
to U.S. Patent No. 6,126,722, ``Electrostatic Reduction System for 
Reducing Airborne Dust and Microorganisms,'' issued on October 3, 2000, 
for all uses in the field of livestock agriculture. Notice of 
Availability of this invention for licensing was published in the 
Federal Register on July 27, 1999.

DATES: Comments must be received within thirty (30) calendar days of 
the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in 
this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as Baumgartner Environics, Inc., 
of Olivia, Minnesota has submitted a complete and sufficient 
application for a license. The prospective license will be royalty-
bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective license may be granted unless, within 
thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the 
Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument 
which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent 
with the

[[Page 57257]]

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-21482 Filed 9-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
### §117c. Standards for approval of tribal payments; United States not liable for distribution of funds; continuing responsibility under other provisions

(a) The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish reasonable standards for the approval of tribal payments pursuant to section 117a of this title and, where approval is given under such regulations, the United States shall not be liable with respect to any distribution of funds by a tribe under sections 117a to 117c of this title.

(b) Nothing in sections 117a to 117c of this title shall otherwise absolve the United States from any other responsibility to the Indians, including those which derive from the trust relationship and from any treaties, Executive orders, or agreements between the United States and any Indian tribe.

(Pub. L. 98–64, §3, Aug. 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 365.)
§ 10010.25 Supplemental environmental impact statements. ( a ) Supplement Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS) are only required if such changes in the proposed action or alternatives, new circumstances, or resultant significant effects are not adequately analyzed in the previously prepared EIS.
( b ) The Commission will consult with the Office of the Solicitor prior to proposing to CEQ to prepare a final supplement without preparing an intervening draft.
( c ) If, after a Record of Decision has been executed based on a final EIS, a described proposal is further refined or modified and if there are only minor changes in effects or they are still within the scope of the earlier EIS, an EA and FONSI may be prepared for subsequent decisions rather than a SEIS. As identified in Sec. 10010.61(b)(1)(i), changes having no potential for significant environmental impact are categorically excluded from environmental documentation requirements.
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Physiography and glacial geology of western Montana and 
adjacent areas

#### Professional Paper 231

Tweet


#### Links

- More information: **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**     
                             (html)
- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 4**                                
    (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp231 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:10:16
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors

Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference ofour Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 3, 2005on the amended Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm includedin this Form 10-K/A, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statement(File No. 333-101447).

 
| /s/ Stonefield Josephson,  Inc. |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Irvine, California              |
| March 31, 2006                  |

 

----
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



### Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866

Title of Action:

Docket#: FRL#: RIN:

This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 , titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Whenever EPA makes publicly available a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, sect ion 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also: (1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e.

, the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable, an assessment of the potential costs an d benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 6(a)(3)(B) and (C)). (2) Identify for the public any substa ntive changes between the draft submitt ed to OIRA and the action that was subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple. (3) Identify for the public those subs tantive changes made at the sugges tion or recommendation of OIRA.

For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O. 12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.]

No. [In the docket, include the information identified in item (1) below.]

Yes. [In the docket, include the information identified in items (1) – (3) below.]

Accordingly, the Agency has included this fo rm and the following information in the public docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.] (1) A copy of the information that was prov ided to OIRA for review under the E.O. (2) Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regul atory text that was submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publ icly available. The documentation is provided on the pages fo llowing this form. Changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, ar e clearly identified through attribution to OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the appropriate option(s).] (a) Redline-Strikeout – A copy of the draft regulator y action submitted, using redlinestrikeout to show the substantive changes that were made. (b) Hand Markup – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes to show the substantive c hanges that were made. (c) Note to the file - A document that identifies the s ubstantive changes that were made, with page and paragraph references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted.

If you have any questions about this regulator y action or this documentation, please call the contact:

Name: Em ail: Phone:

Revised 05/05/2010
p.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Prepped by LaTeia Shed 

Document Number: 

83) ll-B-57 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:31 AM Sheet 83 of 99 
P.2 

T£-(VS7 

A-88-02 

Information on health or risk assessment was removed from the 

docket. This information was compiled before the Clean Air 

Act Amendments (1990) but was not used in the development of 

the chromium NESHAP. 

r 

\\\ 

, a*"".' . ,••» >.. ..' — -t^ m
### §§212 to 215. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862

Section 212, R.S. §2143, related to arson. See section 1153 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 213, R.S. §2142, related to assault. See section 1153 of Title 18.

Section 214, R.S. §2138; act June 30, 1919, ch. 4, §1, 41 Stat. 9, related to removing cattle from Indian country.

Section 215, R.S. §2144, related to forgery and depredations on the mails. See sections 1151 and 1152 of Title 18.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Sept. 1, 1948, see act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §20, 62 Stat. 862.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 2046

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DONNIE T. KERN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Thomas T. Cullen , District Judge. ( 7:21

- cv - 00471

- TTC )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Donnie T. Kern, Appellant Pro Se. Travis Stuart Andrews, Jim H. Guynn, Jr. , GUYNN WADDELL CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C. , Salem, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2046 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM : Donnie T. Kern seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the case to the state court from which it was removed. The district court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Generally , a n order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see 28 U.S.C. § 1442 ( exception for cases involving “[f]ederal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted”); 28 U.S.C. § 1443 ( exceptio n for cases involving “[c]ivil rights cases”)

. The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995);

see Doe v. Blair , 819 F.3d 64, 66

- 67 (4th Cir. 2016) (“ [A] di strict court may remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time , and such an order is not reviewable

. ”) (citations omitted)). The district court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We, therefore, are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. See Doe , 819 F.3d at
66. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Kern’s motion to accelerate case processing, to schedule oral argument, and for injunctive or other relief

. 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 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2046 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 30.233 What will the judge do with the original record? ( a ) The judge must send the original record to the designated LTRO under 25 CFR part 150.
( b ) The judge must also send a copy of: ( 1 ) The order to the agency originating the probate, and
( 2 ) The order and inventory to other affected agencies.
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


         I, Denis Aubin, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary, certify that in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer
of MAAX Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), that the Annual Report of the Company on
Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  May 30, 2006                /s/ DENIS AUBIN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Denis Aubin
                                   Title: Executive Vice President,
                                          Chief Financial Officer and
                                          Secretary


         A signed original of this written statement 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.
§ 30.249 What happens when the judge issues an order on reopening? ( a ) Copies of the judge's order on reopening must be mailed to the petitioner, the affected agencies, and all interested parties.
( b ) The judge must submit the record made on a reopening petition to the designated LTRO.
( c ) The order on reopening will become final on the expiration of the 30 days allowed for the filing of a notice of appeal, as provided in this part.
[86 FR 72088, Dec. 20, 2021]
### §§2472 to 2478. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–573, title VII, §702(b)(2), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4582

Section 2472, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4225, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–148, related to responsibilities of Indian Health Service for alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment.

Section 2473, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4226, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–149; Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2217, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4222, provided for program of alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment through Indian Health Service.

Section 2474, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4227, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–149; Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2212, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4219; Pub. L. 101–630, title V, §509(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4567, provided for Indian Health Service program of alcohol and substance abuse detoxification and rehabilitation for Indian youth.

Section 2475, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4228, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–150; Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2213, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4220, provided for program of training and community education about alcohol and substance abuse.

Section 2476, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4229, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–152; Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2214, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4220, provided for establishment of Navajo alcohol rehabilitation demonstration program.

Section 2477, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4230, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–152, related to compilation of data and preparation of reports on cases of alcohol or substance abuse in which Indian Health Service personnel or services were involved.

Section 2478, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4231, as added Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2215, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4221, authorized grants for alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment in urban centers.
# Fou **rth Court**  **of Appeals**  **San A**  **ntonio, T**  **exas**

September 11, 2019

No. 04-19-00084- CR

Gabriel MARTINEZ , Appellant

v.

The STATE of T exas, Appellee

From t he 379t h Judicial D istrict C ourt, Bexar C ounty, Texas

Trial C ourt N o. 2016CR7552 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding



### ORDE R
On July 31, 2019, we abated this appeal, remanded the cause to the trial court, and ordered the trial court to conduct an abandonment hearing by August 21, 2019. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2). We further ordered the trial court clerk and court reporter to file supplemental records on or before August 30, 2019.
On August 29, 2019, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing a letter from the Honorable Ron Rangel. Judge Rangel requests an extension until October 4, 2019 to comply with our July 31, 2019 order.
After consideration, we GRANT the request and ORDER the trial court to conduct an abandonment hearing by October 4, 2019. We fu rther ORDER the trial court clerk and cou rt reporter to file in this court, on or before October 14, 2019, (1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations addressing the issues outlined in our July 31, 2019 order ; and (2) a reporter’s record of the hearing. See id . R. 38.8(b)(3).

_________________________________ Beth Watkins, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th e seal of the said court on this 11th day of September, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
#### Morris Greenstein, Respondent, v. David Kahan, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage alleged to have resulted from the collision of automobiles, judgment for plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with jCosts. The evidence does not warrant the finding of any negligence on the part 'of defendant, but requires a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Carswell, Acting *975P. J., dissents and votes to affirm. *(Burd*v. Bleischer, 208 App. Div. 499, 501; *Imbriale*v. *Skidmore,*252 App. Div. 884, cited with approval in *Gustavson*v. *Southern Blvd R. R. Co.,*292 N. Y. 309, 316; *De Santes*v. *Mural Transp. Corp.,*259 App. Div. 836, affd. 285 N. Y. 711.)
### SUBCHAPTER XLIX—SHAWNEE TRIBE OR NATION: DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUND
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51263 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS ANGEL MURILLO-PAYAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:01-CR-319-2-AML

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Angel Murillo-Payan, federal prisoner # 18272-180,

appeals the district court’s denial of his request for mandamus

relief. Specifically, Murillo-Payan argues that by failing to

designate the State Prison System in Oklahoma as the place of

confinement for service of his federal sentence, the Bureau of

Prisons (BOP) has essentially rendered his federal and state

sentences consecutive rather than concurrent, in violation of his
No. 04-51263

-2-

plea agreement, the district court’s judgment, and the Fifth

Amendment. 

Murillo-Payan has failed to establish a clear and

indisputable right to mandamus relief. The extraordinary remedy

of mandamus is not available to review the discretionary acts of

officials. Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1108 (5th Cir.

1992). Although the Attorney General, through the BOP, has

discretion to designate a state facility as the place in which a

federal prisoner serves his sentence, the prisoner has no

constitutional right to placement in a particular facility. See

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Moore v. United States Att’y Gen., 473 F.2d

1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973). Although the district court may

recommend the place of imprisonment, the district court’s

recommendation is not binding on the BOP. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3621(b)(4); United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149, 151-52 (5th

Cir. 1993). Moreover, contrary to Murillo-Payan’s contention,

the plea agreement contained no promise that his federal sentence

would be ordered to run concurrently with his previously imposed

state sentence.

Finally, Murillo-Payan may seek administrative relief from

the BOP and, if denied, pursue habeas corpus relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th

Cir. 1993). Therefore, Murillo-Payan has a remedy available to

him and the district court did not err by denying his request for
No. 04-51263

-3-

mandamus relief. See In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir.

1987), aff’d, 503 U.S. 131 (1992). 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
§ 2568.105 In what situations could a CSU manager likely find an allotment to be consistent with the CSU? An allotment could generally be consistent with the purposes of the CSU if: ( a ) The allotment for which you qualify is located near land that BLM has conveyed to a Native corporation under ANCSA, or,
( b ) A Native corporation has selected the land under ANCSA and has said it would relinquish such selection, as long as the remaining ANCSA selection comports with the appropriate selection rules in 43 CFR 2650. Any relinquishment must not cause the corporation to become underselected. See 43 U.S.C. 1621(j)(2) for a definition of underselection.
(No. 74-CC-599

#### H. L. Wibbels, M.D., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 15, 1974.*

H. L. Wibbels, M.D., *Claimant, pro se.*

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.