alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 109–17—JUNE 29, 2005 119 STAT. 339

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 643:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

Apr. 21, considered and passed Senate.

June 13, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 109–17

109th Congress

An Act

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to reauthorize State mediation programs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF STATE MEDIATION PROGRAMS.

Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C.

5106) is amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’.

Approved June 29, 2005.

June 29, 2005

[S. 643]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59579-59580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22307]


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

ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION


Public Meeting

AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold a public 
meeting on October 20, 2004. The purpose of the meeting will be to (1) 
discuss the criteria and processes upon which the Commission will 
employ in selecting issues for further study and (2) discuss the nature 
of the report the Commission will issue.

DATES: October 20, 2004, 10 a.m. until 1 p.m., unless earlier 
adjourned. All interested members of the public may attend. 
Registration is not required.

ADDRESSES: Federal Trade Commission, Conference Center Rooms A & B, 601 
New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director 
& General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission: telephone: (202) 
326-2487; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbb2b5bdb49bbab6b8f5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb6b1b9b09fbeb2bcf1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>. Mr. Heimert is also the Designated 
Federal Officer (DFO) for the Antitrust Modernization Commission.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Antitrust Modernization Commission

[[Page 59580]]

was established to ``examine whether the need exists to modernize the 
antitrust laws and to identify and study related issues.'' Antitrust 
Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-273, Sec.  11053, 116 
Stat. 1856.
    The AMC has called this meeting pursuant to its authorizing statute 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization 
Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-273, Sec.  11058(f), 116 Stat. 
1758, 1857; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2); 41 
CFR 102-3.150 (2003).

    Dated: September 27, 2004.

    By direction of Deborah A. Garza, Chair of the Antitrust 
Modernization Commission.

    Approved by Designated Federal Officer:
Andrew J. Heimert,
Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization 
Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-22307 Filed 10-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-YM-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 46.400 Timing of environmental impact statement development.

The bureau must prepare an environmental impact statement for each proposed major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment before making a decision on whether to proceed with the proposed action.
#### Daniel D. Whitney, Jr., Respondent, v. Henry L. Preston, Appellant, and Jacob Tuck, Defendant.

Order of the County Court of Kings county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred.
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Docket ID: FAA-2015-2953 Request for Amendment Dear Sir or Madam: Detroit Aircraft, L.L.C. currently has a pending petition for exemption in the above-referenced docket. This letter is to inform the FAA of a recent change to the name of the company. Detroit Aircraft, L.L.C. converted to Detroit Aircraft Corporation. Petitioner hereby requests that the FAA amend the application to reflect this change. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions about this change or the petition for exemption. Sincerely,

on R. Rimanelli CEO
EXHIBIT 3.11

         Assignment of Oil and Gas Working Interest (Johnson Anticline)

                   ASSIGNMENT OF OIL AND GAS WORKING INTEREST



STATE OF ARIZONA

COUNTY OF MARICOPA



          In  consideration  of the  sum  of  One  Hundred  and  no/100  dollars
     ($100.00)  and other good and valuable  consideration,  receipt of which is
     hereby  acknowledged,  Gordon M. LeBlanc,  Jr., an individual,  residing at
     5527 East Camelback Road, Phoenix,  Arizona 85018, as Assignor, does hereby
     assign,  transfer,  sell and  convey a thirty  seven and  one-half  percent
     (37.5%)  working  interest in a certain Oil,  Gas and Mineral  Lease herein
     further described as the Johnson Anticline  Prospect,  Sandoval County, New
     Mexico and attached as Exhibit "A". Therefore,  Gordon M. LeBlanc, Jr. does
     hereby  assign,  transfer,  sell and convey unto the following  hereinafter
     named Assignee in the proportions set opposite each name, to-wit:

                                                         Percentage of Interest

LeBlanc Petroleum, Incorporated                                    37.5%
5527 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, Arizona  85018



          The  working  interest  conveyed  herein  shall  be  paid  to  LeBlanc
     Petroleum,  Inc.,  subject to the net revenue interests provided for in the
     leases set forth in Exhibit "A".

          This  assignment is made without  warranty of title either  express or
     implied.

          This assignment shall be binding upon the Assignor and Assignee, their
     heirs, successors, representatives, executors and assigns.

          This instrument is executed this 29th day of November, 2001.


                                                     Gordon M. LeBlanc, Jr.,
                                                     an individual


                                                    By:/s/Gordon M. LeBlanc, Jr.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                          Gordon M. LeBlanc, Jr.

                                       1
<PAGE>
§ 4.432 Postponements. ( a ) Postponements of hearings will not be allowed upon the request of any party or the Bureau or Office except upon a showing of good cause and proper diligence. A request for a postponement must be served upon all parties to the proceeding and filed in the office of the administrative law judge at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. In no case will a request for postponement served or filed less than 10 days in advance of the hearing or made at the hearing be granted unless the party requesting it demonstrates that an extreme emergency occurred which could not have been anticipated and which justifies beyond question the granting of a postponement. In any such emergency, if time does not permit the filing of such request prior to the hearing, it may be made orally at the hearing.
( b ) The request for a postponement must state in detail the reasons why a postponement is necessary. If a request is based upon the absence of witnesses, it must state what the substance of the testimony of the absent witnesses would be. No postponement will be granted if the adverse party or parties file with the administrative law judge within 5 days after the service of the request a statement admitting that the witnesses on account of whose absence the postponement is desired would, if present, testify as stated in the request. If time does not permit the filing of such statement prior to the hearing, it may be made orally at the hearing.
( c ) Only one postponement will be allowed to a party on account of the absence of witnesses unless the party requesting a further postponement shall at the time apply for an order to take the testimony of the alleged absent witness by deposition.
[36 FR 7186, Apr. 15, 1971, as amended at 75 FR 64668, Oct. 20, 2010; 88 FR 5794, Jan. 30, 2023]
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3968 — Sovion/Südfleisch)

(2005/C 276/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
### §6064. Signature presumed authentic

The fact that an individual's name is signed to a return, statement, or other document shall be prima facie evidence for all purposes that the return, statement, or other document was actually signed by him.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 749.)
ex1020bsloaneemploymenta






NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES CORP.  _____________________________    EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH  BARRY SLOANE  _____________________________    PREAMBLE WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, AGREED “Board”   “Change in Control” 





 






Common Stock”  “Good Reason”  “Just Cause”  “Protected Period” “Trigger Event” 





 






Participation in Retirement, Medical and Other Plans Executive Benefits; Expenses  ,  ,  





 






Just Cause Without Just Cause 





 






Resignation by Executive with Good Reason Resignation by Executive without Good Reason Death, or Disability Non-Renewal Payment 





 






Acceleration of Equity Awards 





 






 





 






 





 






NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. EXECUTIVE
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22678]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1561-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-1561-DR), dated September 26, 2004, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 26, 2004:

Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Charlotte, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, 
Flagler, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lafayette, Madison, Nassau, 
Putnam, Sarasota, St. Johns, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union Counties 
for Individual Assistance.
Citrus, DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Levy, and Manatee Counties for 
Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance 
Categories A and B, including direct Federal assistance, at 100 
percent Federal funding of the total eligible costs for a period of 
up to 72 hours.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedeness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 04-22678 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quantitative Methods
Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Pierre C. Miron, President and Director of
Quantitative Methods Corporation, and Helga Leuthe, Secretary/Treasurer and
Director of Quantitative Methods Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

Dated: November 16, 2006



/s/ Pierre C. Miron
Pierre C. Miron, President and Director



/s/ Helga Leuthe
Helga Leuthe, Secretary/Treasurer and Director




                                                              1
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### FAA 2013 0029 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2013

- NE

- 01

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) int o and then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labo r

cost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Prorate Critical Parts Lo st Life Cost (Profile D) 0.0 $ 0.00 $77,672 $ 77,672.00 

### 60 $ 4,660,320.0 0



### Prorate Critical Parts L ost Life Cost (Profile E ) 0.0 $ 0.00 

### $204,981 $ 204,981.00 35 $ 7,174,335.0 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 11,834,655 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per P roduct

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain any thing in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### N/A

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Sacramento

River

CCOOLL UUSSAA CCOO

T16N R1W

T15N R1W

28

33

4

29

32

5

27

34

3

20 21 22

Arbee

88.2 L

Contract No. 14-06-200-1945A-R-1

Exhibit B

Locvich, Loyd

725-202-89

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.5 1

Miles

Date: November 9, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\locvich_loyd\locvich_loyd.mxd

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 2, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-16283

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00165-CR-T-27EAJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

HILARIO SALINAS-LOPEZ, 

a.k.a. Juan Lopez

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(July 2, 2007)

Before ANDERSON, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Alex Fitzgerald Hall, appointed counsel for Hilario Salinas-Lopez in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Salinas-Lopez’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Timucuan
Ecological & Historic Preserve
Florida


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Flora of the Timucuan Preserve
 Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
On-Line Field Guide
Adapted from the work by Laura Elston, Christina Frank, Angela Rutland, Keely Wells and
Dr. Nisse Goldberg
Jacksonville University
April 2008
Daniel R. Tardona, Editor, National Park Service, Timucuan Preserve
Park Information
The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve covers 46,000 acres and offers visitors a chance to experience unspoiled, Florida wilderness.  Nature trails wind through hardwood forests, wetlands, and scrub vegetation. Home to diverse populations of plants and animals, the Preserve was once inhabited by the Timucua Indians at the time of European contact.
Common Flora of the Timucuan Preserve
During a visit to various areas within the preserve, one may encounter a wide variety of plants. Some species are more abundant than others. This section of the field guide will describe the most common plants one might see during a visit. Listed are the common and scientific names of each plant, its habit (growth form), habitat type, flowering period, pollinators, size, where it is can be found in the park, and other interesting information such as present and past medicinal uses.



Explore Whole Habitats
Image of salt marsh with blue skies and few clouds Salt Marsh
Image of live oak branches covered in spanish mossRasmussen Photo
Maritime Hammock
Image of pine flatwoods at sunset Pine Flatwoods
 Last updated: October 19, 2021
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: 12713 Fort Caroline Road
Jacksonville,
FL
32225
 Phone: 904-641-7155 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7393
DOMINIC JARAMILLO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STRANSBERRY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-356-5-FL) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 19, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dominic Jaramillo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dominic Jaramillo, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jaramillo v. Stransberry , No. CA-05-356-5-FL (E.D.N.C. filed July 11, 2005 & entered July 14, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Teaching with Historic Places
#### In re Minnie Greaser et al.

Filed November 2, 1904.

No. 13,620.

Habeas Corpus: Aepeal. Tbe judgment of a district court in a proceeding in babeas corpus will not be reviewed by tbis court on appeal.

Appeal from the district court for Colfax county: James A. Grimison, Judge.

*Dismissed.*

*George W. Wertz,*for relator.

*W. I. Allen*and *E. T. Hodsdon, contra.*

Oldham, C.

This was a proceeding in habeas corpus in the district court for Colfax county, Nebraska. There was a judgment for the relators in the court below, which respondents seek to have reviewed by this court on appeal. No motion was filed for a new trial in the court below, nor was a petition in error filed in this court. This leaves but one question to determine, and that is as to the form of the procedure under which this court will review the judgment of a district court in habeas corpus. This question was before us in the case of *In re Van Scierer,*42 Neb. 772, and, after a careful examination of the proper method of review of causes of this nature by this court, we determined that proceedings in habeas corpus were civil in their nature and could, and would, be reviewed here on error proceedings, but not on appeal. We think the rule well supported in principle, and therefore recommend that the appeal in the case at bar be dismissed.

Ames and Letton, CC., concur.

By the Court:

For the reasons, stated in the foregoing opinion, the appeal in the case at bar is

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0621

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRITTNEY ANN ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until February 7, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

January 7 2022

01/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0621