alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Map 3-5

Hydrologic Regions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Columbia River

Snake River

Sacramento River

San Joaquin River

Colorado River

Gila River

Missouri River

Platte River

Arkansas River

Green River

Pecos River

Rio Grande

0 200 400 600 800

Miles

0 100 200 300 400

Miles

Source: U.S. Geological Survey 1994a, b

Note: Coverage for BLM-administered lands is not available 

 for Texas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma

3-81

Colville River

Yukon River

1 - Alaska

2 - Pacific Northwest

3 - California

4 - Upper Colorado

5 - Lower Colorado

6 - Rio Grande

7 - Missouri

8 - Great Basin

9 - Arkansas-White-Red

Hydrologic Regions

BLM-administered Lands
### §16981. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16981 was editorially reclassified as section 20981 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
5313.501 Special Documentation

Requirements

(a)(1)(ii) See the tailorable Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures

for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services template.

(a)(2) See DAFFARS 5306.304(a) for the approving officials for acquisitions using the limited or sole

source justification at FAR 13.501(a)(2).

Parent topic: Subpart 5313.5 - SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS
#### George W. Reddig et al., Copartners, trading as Reddig Company, Defendants in Error, v. Norman Friedenwald, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,493.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habby M. Fisiieb, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 31, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by George W. Reddig, R. R. Reddig and F. 0. Reddig, copartners, trading as Reddig Company, against Norman Friedenwald to recover for work and materials furnished to the defendant. The trial was before the court without a jury. To reverse a judgment entered on a finding in favor of plaintiff for $161.48, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

Sidney N. Ware, for plaintiff in error.

*38Abstract of the Decision.

Principal and agent, § *181*
      ***
      *—when finding that defendant acted in capacity of principal warranted by evidence.*In an action to recover for work and materials furnished where the only issue in the case was whether the defendant when ordering the material acted in the capacity of principal or agent, a finding in favor of plaintiff *held*warranted by the evidence, it appearing that there were but two witnesses, one for each of the parties, and that the trial court found against the contention of defendant

Benner & Weld, for defendants in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.
(logo)BERKADIA ®

 

 

AnnualStatement as to Compliance

For the YearEnded December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”)

 

*GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II,*

*Series2019-GC39*

 

 

Pursuant toSection 3.01 (32) of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referencedtransaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

 i.       Areview of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during theReporting Period has been made under my supervision.

 

ii.      Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this SubservicingAgreement throughout the Reporting Period and no default by the Subservicerunder the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.

 

 

Berkadia, 

 

 

/s/ Mark ECool

Mark E.McCool

President

February 10,2020
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

* * Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30905 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DENAUD EGANA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CR-53-ALL-G

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM: ** Denaud Egana was convicted for possessing and passing counterfeit obligations has appealed the sentence imposed by the district court. Egana contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense level for obstruction of justice. The district court’s determination that a defendant has obstructed justice is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Bethley , 973 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court is required to increase a defendant’sNo. 98-30905 -2- offense level by two levels “if the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Although some of Egana’s actions which form the basis for the district court’s ruling arguably were contemporaneous with his arrest, see § 3C1.1, comment. (n.3(d)), we hold that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Egana’s other actions constituted obstruction of justice. See Bethley , 973 F.2d at 402. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

June 6, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Rochelle C. Bavol, Acting Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-15-0149 – ROLE OF THIRDPARTY ARBITRATORS IN LICENSEE ACCESS 

AUTHORIZATION AND FITNESS-FOR-DUTY 

DETERMINATIONS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 

The Commission has approved the staff’s Option 1A to proceed with the rulemaking process to 

further explore the issues raised in the staff's paper and in the divergent comments offered by 

unions and licensees on the topic. 

In proceeding with rulemaking, the staff should endeavor to ensure that any proposed revisions 

to our regulations are as narrowed in scope as is necessary to ensure the public safety and 

security.

The staff should not unnecessarily preclude arbitration outright but should consider how the 

NRC's goals can be achieved while still allowing redressability with respect to a licensee's 

access determinations. 

 

The staff should make specific outreach to potentially affected labor organizations regarding the 

proposed content and timeframe for the proposed rule, in addition to its normal outreach efforts. 

Any further rule on access authorization and fitness-for-duty determinations at nuclear power 

plants should ensure that there is a reasonable and balanced accommodation of interests in 

access determinations. 

The proposed rule should include a robust appeal process for workers whose access 

authorization is denied or revoked. 

The staff should address third-party review of fitness-for-duty determinations in the same 

rulemaking. 

The staff should maintain awareness of ongoing arbitration of access authorization 

determinations so that orders can be prepared in any case in which Commission intervention is 

necessary to ensure the safety and security of a nuclear power plant. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 
2 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

PDR
#### § 239.94 Form 1-Z.

This form shall be used to file an exit report under Regulation A (§§ 230.251-230.263 of this chapter).

[80 FR 21922, Apr. 20, 2015]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form 1-Z, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3783 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                     December 12, 2012.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
3783) entitled ``An Act to provide for a comprehensive strategy to 
counter Iran's growing hostile presence and activity in the Western 
Hemisphere, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            On page 11, strike lines 17-19 and insert the following:

    (d) Form.--The strategy in this section may be submitted in 
classified form, but shall include an unclassified summary of policy 
recommendations to address the growing Iranian threat in the Western 
Hemisphere.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 3783

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
1 The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitute s the final agency determination for purposes of judicial review. SeeKimumwe v. Gonzales , 431 F.3d 319, 322 (8th Cir. 2005). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1604

___________ Sarah Nkurunungi, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board of * Immigration Appeals. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: September 6, 2006 Filed: September 11, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sarah Nkurunungi, a citizen of Uganda, petitions for revi ew of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1-2- After careful review of the record, we conclude the IJ’s asylum decision--based on the finding that Nkurunungi failed to es tablish a well-founded fear of future persecution--is supported by substantial evid ence in the record as a whole. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). Further, because Nkurunungi failed to meet the burden of proof on her asylum claim, her claim for withholding of re moval necessarily fails as well, see Turay v. Ashcroft , 405 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir. 2005) (withholding- of-removal standard is more rigorous than asylum standard), and we see no ba sis in the record for CAT relief, see Habtemicael v. Ashcroft , 370 F.3d 774, 780-82 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing considerations relevant to relief under CAT). Accordingly, we deny the petition. We also deny Nkurunungi’s motion to supplement the record. We previously gr anted Nkurunungi’s motion for stay of her removal and voluntary-departure period; the remaining period in which she may voluntarily depart the United States shall be gin to run when our mandate in this case is issued, see Falaja v. Gonzales , 418 F.3d 889, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2005).

______________________________
### §1592h. Conditions and requirements as to contracts; utilization of existing facilities; disposition of facilities constructed by United States

In carrying out this subchapter—

(a) notwithstanding any other provisions of this subchapter, so far as is consistent with emergency needs, contracts shall be subject to section 6101 of title 41;

(b) the cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting shall not be used, but contracts may be made on a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee basis: Provided, That the fixed fee shall not exceed 6 per centum of the estimated cost;

(c) wherever practicable, existing private and public community facilities shall be utilized or such facilities shall be extended, enlarged, or equipped in lieu of constructing new facilities; and

(d) all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any community facilities constructed by the United States pursuant to the authority contained in this subchapter shall (if such agency is willing to accept such facility and operate the same for the purpose for which it was constructed) be disposed of to the appropriate State, city, or other local agency having responsibility for such type of facility in the area not later than one year after June 30, 1953, and subject to the conditions and requirements hereafter prescribed by the Congress.

(Sept. 1, 1951, ch. 378, title III, §309, 65 Stat. 307.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "section 6101 of title 41" substituted for "section 3709 of the Revised Statutes" on authority of Pub. L. 111–350, §6(c), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3854, which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.
#### § 1028.105-1028.106 [Reserved]
§ 906.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the procedures governing administrative adjudications before the National Appeals Office (NAO).
( b ) NAO will adjudicate appeals of initial administrative determinations in limited access privilege programs developed under section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and approved after the effective date of these regulations. Those appeals are informal proceedings.
( c ) The procedures in this part may be incorporated by reference in regulations other than those promulgated pursuant to section 303A of the MSA.
( d ) The Secretary of Commerce may request that NAO adjudicate appeals in any matter in controversy that requires findings of fact and conclusions of law, and other quasi-judicial matters that the Secretary deems appropriate, consistent with existing regulations. The Secretary will provide notice to potential appellants and to any affected party in these other matters through regulations or actual notice.
( e ) The procedures in this part may not be used to seek review of the validity of statutes or regulations.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2004-19326; Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-55]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Oberlin, KS.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2525.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 26, 2004 (69 FR 62404). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on January 20, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO on November 26, 2004.

Elizabeth S. Wallis,

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 04-26849  Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 2.34 Disposition. ( a ) *Acceptance of proposed consent agreement.* The Commission may accept or refuse to accept a proposed consent agreement. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section, acceptance does not constitute final approval, but it serves as the basis for further actions leading to final disposition of the matter.
( b ) *Effectiveness of hold-separate or asset-maintenance order.* Following acceptance of a consent agreement, the Commission will, if it deems a hold-separate or asset-maintenance order appropriate, issue a complaint and such an order as agreed to by the parties. Such order will be final upon service. The issuance of a complaint under this paragraph will neither commence an adjudicatory proceeding subject to part 3 of this chapter nor subject the consent agreement proceeding to the prohibitions specified in § 4.7 of this chapter.
( c ) *Public comment.* Promptly after its acceptance of the consent agreement, the Commission will place the order contained in the consent agreement, the complaint, and the consent agreement on the public record for a period of 30 days, or such other period as the Commission may specify, for the receipt of comments or views from any interested person. At the same time, the Commission will place on the public record an explanation of the provisions of the order and the relief to be obtained thereby and any other information that it believes may help interested persons understand the order. The Commission also will publish the explanation in the Federal Register. The Commission retains the discretion to issue a complaint and a Final Decision and Order, incorporating the order contained in a consent agreement, in appropriate cases before seeking public comment. Unless directed otherwise by the Commission, such Decision and Order will be final upon service.
( d ) *Comment on initial compliance report.* If respondents have filed an initial report of compliance pursuant to § 2.33, the Commission will place that report on the public record, except for portions, if any, granted confidential treatment pursuant to § 4.9(c) of this chapter, with the complaint, the order, and the consent agreement.
( e ) *Action following comment period.* ( 1 ) Following the comment period, on the basis of comments received or otherwise, the Commission may either withdraw its acceptance of the agreement and so notify respondents, in which event it will take such other action as it may consider appropriate, or issue and serve its complaint in such form as the circumstances may require and its decision in disposition of the proceeding.
( 2 ) The Commission, following the comment period, may determine, on the basis of the comments or otherwise, that a Final Decision and Order that was issued in advance of the comment period should be modified. Absent agreement by respondents to the modifications, the Commission may initiate a proceeding to reopen and modify the decision and order in accordance with § 3.72(b) of this chapter or commence a new administrative proceeding by issuing a complaint in accordance with § 3.11 of this chapter.
[64 FR 46269, Aug. 25, 1999]
DJI Phantom Pre-Flight Inspection Check List

Pre-Flight Check List

 Visual inspection for defects

 Batteries fully charged and checked - Transmitter, UAS, iPad, iPhone, 

approved/compatible device

 Props tightened and locked

 SD card in camera

 Lens cap removed (As necessary)

 Transmitter turned on (press once, release, then press and hold for 3 seconds)

 Ensure Transmitter is in P Mode

 UAS turned on (press once, release, then press and hold for 3 seconds)

 Flick the transformation switch on transmitter up and down 4 times quickly to convert 

from travel mode to flight mode or use the app

 DJI FC40 app quit and restarted, no other running apps on iPad

 Maps are cached (move the map around, zoom in an out)

 Minimum return height adjusted (check for tallest object and set accordingly)

 UAS placed in safe launch and recover position

 Home point reprogrammed via app

 Area clear of people / obstructions

Flight Check List

 Hover close for 20 seconds. Look / Listen for defects

 Confirm expected stick operation

 Monitor battery power

 Monitor signal strength

 Keep line-of-sight with UAS 

o Ensure area/zone of intended flight path is clear of other aerial traffic.

o Ensure area/zone of intended flight path is clear of any electrical/power lines

o Ensure atmospheric conditions are optimal for safe operation of UAV/UAS

o Select a safe zone to “ditch” the UAV/UAS in the event an emergency landing is required
### §1324. "Governor" defined

When used in this subchapter, the term "Governor" includes the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XII, §1204, as added Pub. L. 86–778, title V, §522(a), Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 979; amended 1967 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §401, eff. Nov. 3, 1967, 32 F.R. 11669, 81 Stat. 951; Pub. L. 93–198, title IV, §421, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 789.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in section 1323, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XII, §1203, as added Aug. 5, 1954, ch. 657, §3, 68 Stat. 672, prior to amendment by Pub. L. 86–778.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Except as otherwise provided in Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967, eff. Nov. 3, 1967 (in part), 32 F.R. 11669, 81 Stat. 948, functions of Board of Commissioners of District of Columbia transferred to Commissioner of District of Columbia by section 401 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967. Office of Commissioner of District of Columbia, as established by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967, abolished as of noon Jan. 2, 1975, by Pub. L. 93–198, title VII, §711, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 818, and replaced by office of Mayor of District of Columbia by section 421 of Pub. L. 93–198. Accordingly, "Mayor" substituted in text for "Commissioners".
#### §§ 8c.31-8c.39 [Reserved]
### §15542. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15542 was editorially reclassified as section 21142 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.