alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 404.44 What criteria will Reclamation apply to determine whether it is appropriate to recommend that a feasibility study be conducted? In reviewing an appraisal investigation, Reclamation will apply the following criteria to determine whether at least one of the alternatives identified is appropriate for further analysis through a feasibility study, or whether the investigation should be terminated without conducting a feasibility study, including: ( a ) Whether a reasonable range of alternatives (structural or non-structural) have been formulated and evaluated;
( b ) Whether the recommendation for further study of one or more alternatives is clearly supported by the analysis in the appraisal investigation; and
( c ) For each alternative considered in the investigation, whether the alternative: ( 1 ) Identifies viable water supplies and water rights sufficient to supply the proposed service area, including all practicable water sources such as lower quality waters, non-potable waters, and water-reuse-based water supplies;
( 2 ) Has a positive effect on public and health and safety;
( 3 ) Will meet water demand, including projected future needs;
( 4 ) Provides environmental benefits, including source water protection;
( 5 ) Applies a regional or watershed perspective and promotes benefits in the region in which the project is carried out;
( 6 ) Implements an integrated water resources management approach;
( 7 ) Enhances water management flexibility, including providing for local control of water supplies and, where applicable, encouraging participation in water banking and markets;
( 8 ) Promotes long-term protection of water supplies;
( 9 ) Includes preliminary cost estimates that are reasonable and supported;
( 10 ) Is cost-effective and generates national net economic benefits as required under the Principles and Guidelines (incorporated by reference at § 404.4);
( 11 ) For each alternative proposed for further evaluation in a feasibility study, whether the project sponsor has the capability to pay 100 percent of the costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the facilities constructed or developed; and
( 12 ) Other factors that Reclamation deems appropriate.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6233

VINCENT LAMONT MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
HELEN FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia Parole Board; DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; CAROLE SIEVERS; HERBERT COULTON; MICHAEL HAWES, Members of the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-401-3)
Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brent A. Jackson, HILL, TUCKER, MARSH & JACKSON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, Richard C. Vorhis, Assistant Attorney General, William W. Muse, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 3 - PER CURIAM: Vincent L. Martin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. * We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on December 19, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 28, 2004. Because Martin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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
Exhibit 4.433

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182535 dated August 13, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Telematic services

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until August 13, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 23, 2020 No. 172-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Terlyakov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS,
   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119588
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Florida

Carlos A. Robinson, an individual.

Eduardo J. Requejo, individually.

Erik N. Good, individually.

Officer Erik N. Good

City of Ft. Luaderdale Police Department

1300 West Broward Boulevard

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312

Tobechuku T. Nwahiri

Nwahiri Law, PLLC

13499 Biscayne Boulevard

Suite 107

Miami, Florida 33181

05/31/2020

0:20-CV-61067

Case 0:20-cv-61067-RAR Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2020 Page 1 of 1
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOVEMBER 22, 2011 JOHN LEY

CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 11-12596

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00072-HLA-MCR BAILEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________ (November 22, 2011) Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:After review and oral argument, we conclude that Defendant-Appellant Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company has not shown any reversible error in the district court’s order, dated May 6, 2011, granting summary judgment in part in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Bailey Industrie s, Inc., as to the claim for $188,780.73. There was no cross-appeal of the distri ct court’s grant of summary judgment in part to Defendant-Appellant Amerisur e as to the additional $540.00 sought by Plaintiff-Appellee Bailey Industries. AFFIRMED.

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22227-CIV-WILLIAMS

JAMES STORM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s

Report and Recommendation (DE 27) on Defendant Carnival Corporation’s Motion to 

Dismiss (DE 16). Defendant filed no objections to the Report.

Upon an independent review of the Report, the record, and applicable case law, 

it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report (DE 27) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendant Carnival Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 16) is DENIED.

3. Defendant Carnival Corporation shall file an answer to the Amended 

Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 27th day of October, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-22227-KMW Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 1 of 1
§ 3603.10 Disposal of mineral materials from community pits and common use areas. ( a ) BLM may make mineral material sales and allow free use under permit from the same deposit within areas that we designate for this purpose. These kinds of disposals must be consistent with other provisions of this part. These designated community pit sites or common use areas may be any size.
( b ) This subpart applies to both sales and free use from community pits and common use areas unless otherwise stated. Refer to subpart 3604 of this part for additional regulations applicable to the free use of mineral materials.
- 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

Waterfalls & Gorges
1

VIA FDMS

February 29, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Caterpillar Inc. – Second Petition to Amend Exemption No. 12372 in Docket No. FAA-2015-1955

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Caterpillar Inc. was granted Exemption No. 12372 in Docket No. FAA-2015-1955, authorizing the operation of several 

models of UAS for commercial purposes. Caterpillar Inc. is the parent company to a number of wholly owned subsidiaries, 

through which it conducts many of its commercial activities. Caterpillar desires to conduct commercial drone operations through 

its subsidiaries, but as Exemption No. 12372 only names Caterpillar Inc. as a grantee, I write now to request that the Agency

amend this exemption to:

(1) name Caterpillar and its wholly owned subsidiaries as grantees; 

(2) authorize Caterpillar and its wholly owned subsidiaries to operate the Microdrones MD4-200 and MD 4-1000. 

Both of these UAS are comparable in type, size, weight, speed, and operating capabilities to the UAS whose 

operations were authorized by the original grant. The agency has already determined that these aircraft meet the 

conditions of Section 333, and has already authorized other petitioners to operate them in exemptions including 

Exemptions number 11171A, 11713, 12496, 12646, 12791, and 13650.

The public interest and safety reasons that formed the basis for the FAA granting the original exemption are 

unchanged, and all subsidiaries will comply fully with all terms and conditions imposed by Exemption No. 12372. The FAA has 

granted numerous concurrent exemptions to parent companies and their subsidiaries, so the requested amendment would not set 

any precedent or raise any new issues. We therefore respectfully request that the FAA issue a summary grant of this petition.

We will be happy to provide any further information that may be needed. 

Please direct communications concerning this petition to myself at the below address or to:

Leah Green

Caterpillar Inc.

100 NE Adams Street

Peoria, IL 61629

Ph: 256-505-6567

Email: green_leah@cat.com

Very truly yours,

Gregory N. Harris

Caterpillar Inc.

100 NE Adams Street

Peoria, IL 61629
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00066-CR 

 

ZACHERY RENE LAMAS, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court 

 Hale County, Texas 

Trial Court No. B21040-1903, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding 

June 23, 2022 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant Zachery Rene Lamas appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a 

child.1 The appellate record was originally due March 28, 2022. The clerk’s record was 

filed by this deadline, but the reporter’s record was not. We subsequently granted the 

reporter, Brenda Rohrs, two extensions to file the reporter’s record due to her caseload.

By letter of May 16, 2022, we admonished Rohrs that failure to file the reporter’s record 

by June 16 would result in the appeal being abated and the cause remanded to the trial 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2).
2

court for further proceedings without further notice. Rohrs has since requested a third 

extension to file the reporter’s record due to her caseload. 

We deny the request, abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court for 

further proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (“The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.”); 37.3(a)(2) (requiring 

appellate courts to “make whatever order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to 

preserve the parties’ rights” when the appellate record is not timely filed). On remand, 

the trial court shall determine the following:

1. what tasks remain to complete the filing of the reporter’s record;

2. why Rohrs has not completed the necessary tasks;

3. what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those 

tasks; and

4. whether Rohrs can complete the tasks within the time the trial court 

finds reasonable.

Should the trial court determine that Rohrs will require more than thirty days to 

complete, certify, and file the reporter’s record, it shall arrange for a substitute reporter to 

do so. The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental clerk’s record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by July 25, 

2022. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
##### 



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 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Internet Commerce Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen Shipley, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. /s/ Glen Shipley
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61000-CIV-SMITH

MARITZA HALES, an individual, on behalf

of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CONCORD SERVICING CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF FINAL DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with

Prejudice [DE 15], dismissing this action. Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the claims of Maritza Hales and 

DISMISSED without prejudice as to the claims of any putative class members.

2. All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are DENIED as moot.

3. This case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 24th day of July, 2020.

________________________________

RODNEY SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: All counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 1 of 1
|James Stafford |                                                                                                                                                                      
|-------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               | James Stafford
Chartered Accountants*
Suite 350  1111 Melville Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6E 3V6
Telephone +1 604 669 0711
Facsimile +1 604 669 0754
|               | *Incorporated professional                                                                                                                                           



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors

Alberta Star Development Corp.



We consent to the incorporation of our report dated 1 February 2006, with respect to the balance sheets of Alberta Star Development Corp. as at 30 November 2005 and 2004, and the related statements of operations and deficit, cash flows and changes in shareholders equity for the period from 6 September 1996 (Date of Inception) to 30 November 2005 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended 30 November 2005 in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Alberta Star Development Corp. dated 22 February 2006.  Our report dated 1 February 2006, included additional comments for U.S. readers that states that conditions and events exist that cast substantial doubt on the Companys ability to continue as a going concern.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.







/s/ James Stafford

Vancouver, Canada

Chartered Accountants



9 March 2006
- 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

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Experience an Urban Oasis at Greenbelt Park

Greenbelt Park
### §5846. Other laws applicable

All provisions of law relating to special taxes imposed by chapter 51 and to engraving, issuance, sale, accountability, cancellation, and distribution of stamps for tax payment shall, insofar as not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, be applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by sections 5801, 5811, and 5821.

(Added Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1232.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5846, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 726, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JAIME MELENDEZ,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1950

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-24-0246-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s July 17, 2024 show cause order, the Merit Systems Protection Board argues for dismissal while Jaime Melendez seeks to proceed with the case. 

Mr. Melendez appealed to the Board alleging that his 

resignation from the Department of the Treasury was involuntary and based, at least in part, on disability 

Case: 24-1950 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/17/2024
2 MELENDEZ v. MSPB

discrimination. The administrative judge dismissed Mr. 

Melendez’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Melendez 

filed a petition for review with the Board, which remains 

pending, and a petition for review with this court. In filings 

with this court, Mr. Melendez states that he abandons the 

“claim that [he] was discriminated against” and will “only 

pursue civil- service claims in the Federal Circuit.” ECF 

No. 4 at 3.1

We dismiss. This court only has jurisdiction over “an 

appeal from a final order or final decision of the . . . Board.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). A timely petition for Board review 

renders the initial decision non-final. See 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113(a); Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 

1361–63 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Given Mr. Melendez’s pending 

petition at the Board, we currently lack jurisdiction. After 

the Board issues a final decision on his petition, he may, if 

necessary, file a timely petition for this court’s review. Alternatively, if Mr. Melendez wishes to forgo Board review 

of his petition and instead directly pursue this court’s review, he may wish to review the Board’s withdrawal policy 

as identified by the Clerk of the Board in a letter accompanying the certified list in this case. See ECF No. 11 at 1; 

see also June 2022 Board Policy.2 

1 Mr. Melendez indicated that he was seeking this 

court’s review of his involuntary resignation claim while 

simultaneously seeking review of the Board’s decision before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but 

the parties’ responses confirm that is not the circumstance. 

See ECF No. 16 at 2; ECF No. 15 at 3 n.1. 

2 Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Policy Regarding Clerk’s Authority to Grant Requests to Withdraw Petitions for Review (2022), 

Case: 24-1950 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/17/2024
MELENDEZ v. MSPB 3

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied.

(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

September 17, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

 

https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/files/Policy_Regarding_Withdrawal_of_a_Petition_for_Review_1515773.pdf 

(last visited September 6, 2024). 

Case: 24-1950 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 09/17/2024
§ 9264.0-3 Authority. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart are issued under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.*) and section 2 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315 *et seq.*).
( b ) The provisions of § 9264.7 of this title are issued under section 8 of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.*).
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VAALCO Energy, Inc. (the “**Company**”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, W. Russell Scheirman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

Dated:May 9, 2007