alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3171.13 Approval of APDs. ( a ) The BLM has the lead responsibility for completing the environmental review process, except in the case of NFS lands. ( 1 ) The BLM cannot approve an APD or Master Development Plan until the requirements of certain other laws and regulations including NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act have been met. The BLM must document that the needed reviews have been adequately conducted. In some cases, operators conduct these reviews, but the BLM remains responsible for their scope and content and makes its own evaluation of the environmental issues, as required by 40 CFR 1506.5(b).
( 2 ) The approved APD will contain Conditions of Approval that reflect necessary mitigation measures. In accordance with 43 CFR 3101.1-2 and 36 CFR 228.107, the BLM or the FS may require reasonable mitigation measures to ensure that the proposed operations minimize adverse impacts to other resources, uses, and users, consistent with granted lease rights. The BLM will incorporate any mitigation requirements, including Best Management Practices, identified through the APD review and appropriate NEPA and related analyses, as Conditions of Approval to the APD.
( 3 ) The BLM will establish the terms and Conditions of Approval for any associated Right-of-Way when the application is approved.
( b ) For NFS lands, the FS will establish the terms and Conditions of Approval for both the Surface Use Plan of Operations and any associated Surface Use Authorization. On NFS lands the FS has principal responsibility for compliance with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, but the BLM should be a cooperating or co-lead agency for this purpose and adopt the analysis as the basis for its decision. After the FS notifies the BLM it has approved a Surface Use Plan of Operations on NFS lands, the BLM must approve the APD before the operator may begin any surface-disturbing activity.
( c ) On Indian lands, BIA has responsibility for approving Rights-of-Way.
( d ) In the case of Indian lands, the BLM may be a cooperating or co-lead agency for NEPA compliance or may adopt the NEPA analysis prepared by the BIA (516 Department of the Interior Manual (DM) 3).
#### § 3101.30 Leases within unit areas, joinder evidence required.

Before issuance of a lease for lands within an approved unit, the lease offeror must file evidence with the proper BLM office that it has joined in the unit agreement and unit operating agreement or a statement giving satisfactory reasons for its failure to enter into such agreement. If such statement is satisfactory to the authorized officer, the lessee may be permitted to operate independently but will be required to conform to the terms and provisions of the unit agreement with respect to such operations.
### §3714. Assessment of Indian agricultural management programs

#### (a) Assessment

Within six months after December 3, 1993, the Secretary, in consultation with affected Indian tribes, shall enter into a contract with a non-Federal entity knowledgeable in agricultural management on Federal and private lands to conduct an independent assessment of Indian agricultural land management and practices. Such assessment shall be national in scope and shall include a comparative analysis of Federal investment and management efforts for Indian trust and restricted agricultural lands as compared to federally-owned lands managed by other Federal agencies or instrumentalities and as compared to federally-served private lands.

#### (b) Purposes

The purposes of the assessment shall be—

(1) to establish a comprehensive assessment of the improvement, funding, and development needs for all Indian agricultural lands;

(2) to establish a comparison of management and funding provided to comparable lands owned or managed by the Federal Government through Federal agencies other than the Bureau; and

(3) to identify any obstacles to Indian access to Federal or private programs relating to agriculture or related rural development programs generally available to the public at large.

#### (c) Implementation

Within one year after December 3, 1993, the Secretary shall provide the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate with a status report on the development of the comparative analysis required by this section and shall file a final report with the Congress not later than 18 months after December 3, 1993.

(Pub. L. 103–177, title I, §104, Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2016.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Change of Name

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs changed to Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean 30 Day Accum Mean 30 Day Avg Mean

1 409 393 402 402 402

2 416 397 407 809 405

3 389 366 375 1,184 395

4 396 367 383 1,567 392

5 398 382 393 1,960 392

6 388 364 378 2,338 390

7 386 368 376 2,714 388

8 387 371 377 3,091 386

9 375 347 362 3,453 384

10 326 307 318 3,771 377

11 323 310 318 4,089 372

12 316 291 302 4,391 366

13 297 282 290 4,681 360

14 307 274 291 4,972 355

15 319 296 307 5,279 352

16 325 298 311 5,590 349

17 312 286 296 5,886 346

18 304 286 296 6,182 343

19 296 278 291 6,473 341

20 294 279 288 6,761 338

21 290 275 284 7,045 335

22 282 268 275 7,320 333

23 271 256 262 7,582 330

24 281 261 271 7,853 327

25 271 258 265 8,118 325

26 282 265 278 8,396 323

27 281 270 275 8,671 321

28 310 271 293 8,964 320

29 302 280 292 9,256 319

30 291 259 277 9,533 318

COMMENT(S): 0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Vernalis On The San Joaquin River

Run Date: 5/2/2024

April 2024
§ 2884.15 What is a Master Agreement (Cost Recovery Category 5) and what information must I provide to the BLM when I request one? ( a ) A Master Agreement (Cost Recovery Category 5) is a written agreement covering processing and monitoring fees (see § 2884.16 of this part) negotiated between the BLM and you that involves multiple BLM grant or TUP approvals for projects within a defined geographic area or for a specific common activity for many projects.
( b ) Your request for a Master Agreement must: ( 1 ) Describe the geographic area covered by the Agreement and the scope of the activity you plan;
( 2 ) Include a preliminary work plan. This plan must state what work you must do and what work BLM must do to process your application. Both parties must periodically update the work plan, as specified in the Agreement, and mutually agree to the changes;
( 3 ) Contain a preliminary cost estimate and a timetable for processing the application and completing the project;
( 4 ) State whether you want the Agreement to apply to future applications in the same geographic area that are not part of the same project(s); and
( 5 ) Contain any other relevant information that BLM needs to process the application.
[70 FR 21058, Apr. 22, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 25974, Apr. 12, 2024]
### §459b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 459b was editorially reclassified as section 5503 of this title.
(No. 732

Claimant awarded $3,800.00.)

#### H. Channon Company, a Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Franchise *tax*— volien *will he awarded.*This case is controlled by the decision of the court in *Herenden Milling Go-*v. *State, supra.*

Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward E. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by above claimant, in the years 1920 and 1921; total excess paid by claimant amounting to $3,800.00.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of social justice and equity, we award claimant the sum of $3,800.00.
Stolt-Nielsen S.A.                                             [GRAPHIC OMITTED]

c/o Stolt-Nielsen Ltd.            Tel: +44 207 611 8960
65 Kingsway                       Fax: +44 207 611 8965
London WC2B 6TD                   www.stolt-nielsen.com
United Kingdom

        Stolt-Nielsen S.A. Has Been Informed that the European Commission
               Has Closed the Deep-Sea Parcel Tanker Investigation

LONDON, May 8, 2008 - Stolt-Nielsen S.A. (Oslo Bors: SNI) today reported that
the European Commission's Competition Directorate has informed Stolt-Nielsen
S.A. (the "Company") that the Competition Directorate has closed its
investigation into possible collusive behaviour in the maritime transport of
bulk liquids on deep-sea routes.

In February 2003, the Company announced that it had entered into the conditional
leniency programme of the European Commission with respect to potential
infringements of European competition rules regarding the maritime transport of
bulk liquids on deep-sea routes. The Company has continued to cooperate with the
EC throughout its five-year investigation.

"We are pleased that the European Commission has closed its investigation and
that they will not impose any penalties on the Company," said Niels G.
Stolt-Nielsen, CEO of Stolt-Nielsen S.A.

Contacts:

      Jan Chr. Engelhardtsen
      U.K. +44 (0) 20 7611 8972
      j.engelhardtsen@stolt.com

      Jens F. Gruner-Hegge
      U.K. +44 (0) 20 7611 8985
      j.gruner-hegge@stolt.com

About Stolt-Nielsen S.A.
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. (the "Company") is one of the world's leading providers of
transportation services for bulk liquid chemicals, edible oils, acids, and other
specialty liquids. The Company, through the parcel tanker, tank container,
terminal, rail and barge services of its wholly owned subsidiaries Stolt Tankers
& Terminals and Stolt Tank Containers, provides integrated transportation
solutions for its customers. Stolt Sea Farm, wholly owned by the Company,
produces and markets high quality turbot, sole, sturgeon and caviar.
### §104. Purchase of articles manufactured at schools

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, whenever it can be done advantageously, to purchase for use in the Indian Service, from Indian manual and training schools, in the manner customary among individuals such articles as may be manufactured at such schools, and which are used in the Indian Service. Accounts of such transactions shall be kept in the Indian Bureau and in the training schools, and reports thereof made from time to time.

(May 11, 1880, ch. 85, §1, 21 Stat. 131.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Effective Jan. 1, 1947, Procurement Division of Department of the Treasury changed to Bureau of Federal Supply by regulation issued by Secretary of the Treasury under authority of section 301 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Functions of Bureau of Federal Supply transferred to Administrator of General Services by section 102 of act June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title I, 63 Stat. 380, which was repealed and reenacted as section 303(a) of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §§1, 6(b), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062, 1304. Section 303(a) of Title 40 was amended generally by Pub. L. 109–313, §2(a)(1), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1734, and, as so amended, no longer relates to the Bureau of Federal Supply. See Historical and Revision Notes and 2006 Amendment note under section 303 of Title 40.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Function of determination of policies and methods of procurement, warehousing, and distribution of property, facilities, structures, improvements, machinery, equipment, stores, and supplies exercised by any agency transferred to a Procurement Division in Department of the Treasury by Ex. Ord. No. 6166, June 10, 1933, set out as a note under section 901 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. 

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 

923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the inquiry must be 

shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984). We give 

deference to the court's factual findings if supported by substantial 

evidence and not clearly erroneous but review the court's application of 

the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 

P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). 

The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which 

Abad's plea counsel testified that he discussed the potential immigration 

consequences with Abad before he entered the plea and specifically 

advised him that a gross misdemeanor could have adverse immigration 

consequences. This testimony was supported by the record, and the 

district court found that this testimony was credible and the plea was very 

favorable to Abad. The district court held that counsel was not ineffective, 

the plea was freely and voluntarily entered, and there was no manifest 

injustice warranting withdrawal of the plea, see NRS 176.165. 

The district court's findings are supported by substantial 

evidence and are not clearly wrong. Abad did not demonstrate that his 

counsel affirmatively misadvised him regarding the deportation 

consequences of entering his plea. See Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 

1043, 194 P.3d 1224, 1232 (2008). Further, even assuming counsel was 

deficient for not informing him that pleading guilty to a gross 

misdemeanor could subject him to automatic deportation, see Padilla v. 

Kentucky, 559 U.S. „ 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1483 (2010), Abad failed to 

demonstrate prejudice because he pleaded guilty to a "wobbler," the State 

was free to argue for the felony conviction at sentencing, and Abad knew 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
-,.‘1%1'..-"-iatRAINNIEltellarif, ?..11 . ffMtikitatiSEMBEEKIIIM 

that imposition of sentence was at the discretion of the district court and if 

he was convicted of the felony he would be subject to automatic 

deportation. We conclude that the district court correctly assessed the 

validity of Abad's plea, Abad failed to demonstrate manifest injustice 

warranting withdrawal of his plea, and the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Abad's motion to withdraw the plea. Therefore, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

j. 

Hardesty 

Ok-.- 6'r - ------Th 

Parraguirre Cherry 

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Don P. Chairez 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Properties Growth Fund XXII 1999 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000740156
<NAME> CENTURY PROPERTIES GROWTH FUND XXII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,241
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         133,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         72,794
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,883
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,192
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,410
<EPS-BASIC>                                    15.32<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
§ 2568.74 What else must I file with my application? You must also file: ( a ) A Certificate of Indian Blood (CIB), which is a Bureau of Indian Affairs form,
( b ) A DD Form 214 “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty” or other documentation from the Department of Defense (DOD) to verify military service, as well as any information on cause of death supplied by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
( c ) A map at a scale of 1:63,360 or larger, sufficient to locate on-the-ground the land for which you are applying, and
( d ) A legal description of the land for which you are applying. If there is a discrepancy between the map and the legal description, the map will control. The map must be sufficient to allow BLM to locate the parcel on the ground. You must also estimate the number of acres in each parcel.
[65 FR 40961, June 30, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 54202, Sept. 14, 2006]
#### Lewis De Angelis, Respondent, *v.*White-All Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

We find no ambiguity in the lease involved in this action. The question of construction, therefore, was for the court rather than the jury. However, under the circumstances we consider that the defendant was not *874prejudiced by the submission of the issue of construction to the jury in this case.

Under the lease the tenant was required to obtain the license for the billiard parlor and any permit necessary under the local law relating to occupancy of places of public assembly. The landlord made no representation as to the suitability of the premises for use as a billiard parlor. But in view of the alterations made to the building by the landlord it was unlawful to occupy any part of the premises for any purpose until a certificate of occupancy had been obtained (New York City Charter [1938], § 646; Administrative Code of City of New York, § C26-181.0 *et seq.).*No license for a particular use could be obtained until the certificate of occupancy was issued. Furthermore, the lease expressly prohibited the use of the premises for any purpose not provided in the certificate of occupancy. The landlord was obligated to obtain a certificate of occupancy. It failed to do so for several months after the commencement of the term, and the tenant vacated.

Under the circumstances the question as to whether the landlord had breached the lease" and the additional question of damages were properly submitted to the jury. The plaintiff took no exception to the charge in respect to either of these matters.

The damages awarded do not appear to be excessive.

The judgment, so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs. [See *post,*p. 893.]
### §677r. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 27, 1954, ch. 1009, §19, 68 Stat. 877, which provided that nothing in this subchapter would affect any claim filed against the United States by the tribe before Aug. 27, 1954, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
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

 500.75

 501.07

 500.11

 499.15

 499.38

 499.70

 500.72

 500.89

 500.95

 499.98

 498.97

 499.22

 500.49

 500.92

 501.35

 501.46

 500.52

 499.55

 499.96

 500.25

 500.58

 500.93

 501.01

 501.05

 500.84

 500.64

 500.82

 501.01

 500.96

 501.32

 501.36

 56,116

 56,464

 55,422

 54,396

 54,641

 54,983

 56,083

 56,268

 56,333

 55,282

 54,204

 54,471

 55,834

 56,300

 56,773

 56,894

 55,867

 54,823

 55,260

 55,574

 55,932

 56,311

 56,398

 56,442

 56,214

 55,997

 56,192

 56,398

 56,344

 56,740

 56,784

STORAGE

+293

+348

-1,042

-1,026

+245

+342

+1,100

+185

+65

-1,051

-1,078

+267

+1,363

+466

+473

+121

-1,027

-1,044

+437

+314

+358

+379

+87

+44

-228

-217

+195

+206

-54

+396

+44

CHANGE

675

707

1

10

657

713

1,110

650

589

27

14

687

1,224

761

763

588

21

11

756

694

705

711

575

563

430

430

619

621

488

714

536

INFLOW

 524

 525

 525

 523

 530

 538

 552

 555

 555

 555

 552

 551

 535

 524

 525

 525

 537

 535

 534

 535

 524

 520

 529

 540

 540

 537

 520

 515

 512

 512

 513

POWER

 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

SPILL

 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

OUTLET

 3

 7

 1

 4

 3

 3

 3

 2

 1

 2

 5

 1

 2

 2

 0

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

 0

 2

 1

 5

 2

 1

 2

 3

 2

 1

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2011 TULLOCH RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 01/03/2012

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +961 17,050 16,497 0 0 68

ACRE-FEET +961 33,819 32,722 0 0 135

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 32,722

SPILL 0 32,722

 55,823

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

NEW

MELONES

RELEASE (1)

 677

 696

 16

 16

 652

 703

 1,107

 654

 584

 35

 16

 688

 1,261

 751

 749

 583

 25

 15

 748

 692

 708

 712

 568

 546

 429

 426

 620

 619

 486

 711

 526

 17,019

 33,757

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

EVAPORATION.
#### Isaac Fragner, Plaintiff, v. Harry Fischel, Defendant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.