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


Yukon - Charley Rivers
National Preserve
Alaska


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Directions
 Click the map to download a full-size versionMap of Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve NPSAlthough there is no direct highway connection to Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, visitors are able to access the preserve by either air travel from Fairbanks, Alaska or water or air travel from two small towns on the road system, near the preserve boundaries.
The 161 mile Taylor Highway begins at Tetlin Junction on the Alaska Highway. It ends on the banks of the Yukon River, 12 miles upstream from the preserve, in the historic town of Eagle, Alaska. The mostly gravel road is usually open from mid-April to mid-October and is suitable for cars, trucks, and small RV's. The Steese Highway begins in Fairbanks and travels 162 miles to Circle, Alaska, 14 miles downstream of the preserve boundary. It is also mostly gravel, but is open year round, depending upon snow and drifting conditions in winter months.
From Eagle, visitors can enjoy a leisurely float down the majestic Yukon River to access the preserve. Visitors arriving in Circle can gain access to the preserve by motoring 14 miles up the Yukon River in a powerboat.
Another option is to charter an air taxi from Fairbanks or Tok and fly into the headwaters of the Charley River to challenge yourself on the rapids of this National Wild River.
Check locally about road conditions before beginning your journey and always remember to bring sufficient emergency supplies with you. It is recommended that you carry water, food, warm clothing, and two spare tires, as these are commonly used emergency items on both the Taylor and Steese Highways. Road condition reports are available and updated regularly.

Eagle Visitors Center and headquarters with Eagle Bluff and the Yukon River in the backgroundNPS/Greg Kinman
 Last updated: March 1, 2024
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: 101 Dunkel St
Suite 110
Fairbanks,
AK
99701
 Phone: 907-459-3730 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
PUBLIC LAW 109–32—JULY 12, 2005 119 STAT. 375

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1542:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

May 4, considered and passed House.

June 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–32

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 695 Pleasant

Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post

Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Honorable

Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building’’.

Approved July 12, 2005.

July 12, 2005

[H.R. 1542]
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.935 Deposit from the Borrower that a CDC may require.

At the time of application for a 504 loan, the CDC may require a deposit from the Borrower of $2,500 or 1 percent of the Net Debenture Proceeds, whichever is less. The deposit may be applied to the loan processing fee if the application is accepted, but must be refunded if the application is denied. If the small business withdraws its application, the CDC may deduct from the deposit reasonable costs incurred in packaging and processing the application.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010

- NM

- 240

- AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Opinion i ssued February 21 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 13
- 0 0027
- CR

____________ SONYA AMADOR , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 184th District Cou rt Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1269270

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Sonya Amador pleaded guilty to the felony offense of murder. The trial court found appellant guilty, and i n accordance with the terms of

a ppellant’s plea agreement wi th the State, sentenced appellant to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant has filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.2 In a plea

- bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial
court’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d). Here, the trial court’ s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id

. T he trial court ’s certification states t hat this is a plea

- bargain case and that the appellant h as no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’ s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal , we must dismiss this appeal

. See Chav ez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardl ess of the basis for the appeal.”)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.931 504 Lending limits. 504 loan amounts shall be limited to: ( a ) An outstanding balance of $5,000,000 for each Borrower and its affiliates if the loan proceeds will not be directed towards a Project in paragraph (c) of this section,
( b ) An outstanding balance of $5,000,000 for each Borrower and its affiliates if one or more of the public policy goals enumerated in § 120.862(b) applies to the Project; and
( c ) $5,500,000 for each Project for: ( 1 ) Small Manufacturers (NAICS Codes 31-33) with all production facilities located in the United States;
( 2 ) Reduction of the Borrower's, or if the Borrower is an Eligible Passive Company, the Operating Company's energy consumption by at least 10%; or
( 3 ) Plant, equipment and process upgrades of renewable energy sources such as the small-scale production of energy for individual buildings' or communities' consumption, commonly known as micropower, or renewable fuel producers including biodiesel and ethanol producers.
[76 FR 63547, Oct. 12, 2011]
#### Fletcher *et al. v.*Harper, tax-collector, *et al.*

Beck, J.

1. It appearing that since the refusal of the injunction prayed for in the court below the defendants have done all that was sought to be enjoined, and that no supersedeas was granted, the writ of error will be dismissed.

2. Where certain citizens and taxpayers of a county filed an equitable petition against the county, th'e tax-collector thereof, and the sheriff, *405seeking to enjoin the collection of a' part of the tax levy for a given year, and the court refused the injunction upon the interlocutory hearing, which judgment was brought here for review, this court will not undertake to decide the questions raised in the bill of exceptions where it is made to appear that subsequently to the refusal of the injunction the petitioners paid the tax the collection of which they sought to have enjoined, but the writ of error will be dismissed without prejudice to • any of the rights of plaintiffs in error.

November 19, 1910.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Wliipple. Irwin superior court. January 27, 1910.

*J. B. Wall*and *Otis II. Elkins,*for plaintiffs.

*E. J. Quincey,*for defendants.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 32,603

#### Gordon Dunn et al., *Appellants,*v. C. H. Jones et al., *Appellees.*

*(57 P.*2d 16)

Opinion denying a rehearing filed May 9, 1936.

(For original opinion of reversal see *ante,*p. 218, 53 P. 2d 918.)

*E. R. Sloan, W. Glenn Hamilton, F. A. Sloan*and *Eldon R. Sloan,*all of Topeka, for the appellants.

*T. M. lAllard, O. B. Eidson*and *Philip H. Lewis,*all of Topeka, for the appellees; *Benjamin F. Hegler, George Siejkin, George B. Powers,*all of Wichita, and *Douglas Hudson,*of Fort Scott, of counsel.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, C. J.:

Because of the method adopted in framing the original opinion, it seems the rock-bottom basis of the decision has not been clearly apprehended.

After stating the facts the court said we must look to the statute to ascertain what kind of insurance policy a motor carrier must furnish. The court then identified the controlling statute and copied it.

In its interpretation of the statute the court considered the provisions of the statute in the order in which they occur, and discussed the name of the policy first. What should have been done was to make it clear in the beginning, as was done later, that the legislature, in effect, wrote the policy in the statute.

The concern of the legislature was not protection to the negligent motor carrier, but to a member of the public who is injured, and compensation to him must be assured, just as if the policy ran to *772the state of Kansas for the benefit of persons run down on the highway by a motor carrier.

Whatever such a policy may be called, and whether or not old and previously interpreted forms of policy may be used or adapted, the statutory kind of policy must be furnished or the motor carrier must keep off the highway.

Having made this clear, the opinion might have discussed the proper label to be attached to that kind of policy. As demonstrated in the opinion, in this state the name “liability policy” is appropriate.

Whether the legislature was wise or unwise in prescribing the kind of policy which it did prescribe is of no concern to the court, and no repetition of approval by the public service commission of any other kind of policy can change the law.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
#### § 127.350 What is a third-party certifier?

A third-party certifier is a non-governmental entity that SBA has authorized to certify that an applicant concern is eligible for the WOSB or EDWOSB contracting program. A third-party certifier may be a for-profit or non-profit entity. The list of SBA-approved third-party certifiers may be found on SBA's website at *sba.gov*.

[85 FR 27662, May 11, 2020]
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4990 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4990

 To amend title 40, United States Code, to increase the mileage of the 
 Appalachian Development Highway System to provide for improvements to 
 and expansion of Corridor K in North Carolina, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2022

 Mr. Tillis (for himself and Mr. Burr) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 40, United States Code, to increase the mileage of the 
 Appalachian Development Highway System to provide for improvements to 
 and expansion of Corridor K in North Carolina, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--Section 14501(a) of title 40, United States Code, 
is amended, in the second sentence, by striking ``three thousand and 
ninety miles'' and inserting ``3,105 miles''.
    (b) Purpose.--The increase in mileage to the Appalachian 
Development Highway System made by the amendment made by subsection (a) 
shall be for improvements to and expansion of Corridor K in North 
Carolina.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1999 FORM 10-Q OF ARGOSY GAMING COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         105,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,188
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,849
<INVENTORY>                                        977
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,101
<PP&E>                                         501,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                 109,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 573,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,161
<BONDS>                                        370,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           281
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   573,806
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,391
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   381
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                       600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
- 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

    - Return to The Civil War

# Educator Resources

Searching...

No results match your search query. Please try again.

Filter Your Results

----

National Park ServiceU.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
#### Patrick Wayne WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER INC; Abbott Manufacturer; Watson Manufacturer; Doctor Dewana Bobo; Doctor Carolyn Lewis; Doctor Unknown Mai; Doctor Unknown Muhuza; Doctor H.L. Rosenburg; Anthony Tarver, Dr.; Burl Cain; “Mike” Foster; Charles Foti; Richard Ieyoub; Jay Kominsky; Dora Rabalais; Richard Stalder, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-30532.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

*243Patrick Wayne Williams, Angola, LA, pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patrick Wayne Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 317402, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the dismissal of his products liability complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Williams’s motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’ ” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (citation omitted). If the appeal is frivolous, this court may dismiss it sua sponte under 5th Cm. R. 42.2. *Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202, n. 24.

Williams has failed to identify any error relevant to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint or the denial of his IFP motion. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). Because Williams has waived the only issue relevant to his appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Williams’s request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996). The district court’s dismissal as frivolous of Williams’s civil rights complaint that we affirm this day in *Williams v. Sheriffs Department,*— Fed.Appx-, No. 05-30598, 2006 WL 470607 (5th Cir. Feb. 23, 2006), also counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). Williams is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2313]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 1998F-0716]


Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc.; Withdrawal of Food Additive 
Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 8B4619) proposing that the food additive regulations be 
amended to provide for the expanded safe use of a polyester-
polyurethane resin-acid dianhydride adhesive in retortable pouches for 
use in contact with fatty food.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hepp, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint 
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3858, 202-418-3098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of August 31, 1998 (63 FR 46226), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 8B4619) had been filed by Dainippon Ink and 
Chemicals, Inc., c/o Center for Regulatory Services, 2347 Paddock Lane, 
Reston, VA 20191. The petition proposed to amend the food additive 
regulations in Sec. 177.1390 Laminate structures for use at 
temperatures of 250 <deg<ls-thn-eq>F and above (21 CFR 177.1390) to 
provide for the expanded safe use of a polyester-polyurethane resin-
acid dianhydride adhesive in retortable pouches for use in contact with 
fatty food. Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc., has now withdrawn the 
petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7).

    Dated: January 9, 2004.
Laura M. Tarantino,
Acting Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 04-2313 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
### [§244. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–295, div. A, title II, §221(a)(41)(A), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 4043]

Section, Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 73; Pub. L. 88–272, title II, §214(b)(1), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 55; Pub. L. 95–600, title III, §301(b)(3), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2820; Pub. L. 99–514, title VI, §611(a)(2), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2249; Pub. L. 100–203, title X, §10221(a)(2), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–408; Pub. L. 100–647, title II, §2004(i)(2), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3603, allowed to corporations as a deduction a percentage of the amount received as dividends on the preferred stock of a public utility.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal not applicable to preferred stock issued before Oct. 1, 1942 (determined in the same manner as under section 247 of this title as in effect before its repeal by Pub. L. 113–295), see section 221(a)(41)(K) of Pub. L. 113–295, set out as an Effective Date of 2014 Amendment note under section 172 of this title.

Except as otherwise provided in section 221(a) of Pub. L. 113–295, repeal effective Dec. 19, 2014, subject to a savings provision, see section 221(b) of Pub. L. 113–295, set out as an Effective Date of 2014 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.