alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Stoneman, Chris

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:55 AM

To: DScott@bwenergylaw.com

Cc: Rothery, Deirdre Subject: RE: Tribal Minor Source permitting question

- Oil and Gas

MNSR deadline
extension

Hello Mr. Scott:

This email is in respo nse to your email of February 24, 2014 that was forwarded to me by EPA Region 8. We are treating your questions as comments under our proposed rule
entitled “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country” that was published on January 14, 2014. We normally respond to comments in the context of taking final action on a proposed rule. We will add your questions to the body of comments to which we will respond. You are, of course, welcome to sub mit more comments as well. The comment period extends to March 17,

2014.

Thank you for your interest in this rulemaking.

Chris Stoneman

From: Scott, David [mailto:DScott@bwenergylaw.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:13 PM
To: Paser, Kathleen Subject: Tribal Minor Source permitting question

Kathleen, I’m an attorney in Denver with a few clients with oil/gas interests on tribal lands in Utah, ND and elsewhere. We have been following the rule proposed in December to

extend the permitting deadline for

true minors on Indian lands for 12

- 18 months. We are concerned that given the tight deadline, EPA may not be able to complete the extension by the original Sept. 2014 deadline. Do you anticipate that the
extension will be im plemented in time, or if not will EPA be requiring operators to pursue individual permits by that deadline since a general permit is likely to be unavailable?

Any light you can shine on this issue would be helpful. There have been a variety of rumo rs circulating about this issue among certain operators, so any clarity you can provide would be well received. I am not, at this point, authorized to disclose which operators we represent on
this issue.If you would prefer to discuss over the ph one, please don’t hesitate to

contact me at the number below,

Dave

David Scott | Beatty & Wozniak, P.C.
Attorney

216 Sixteenth Street, Ste. 1100 Denver, CO 80202

- 5115

303

- 407

- 4445 www.bwenergylaw.com

Energy in the Law

Con fidentiality: This Beatty & Wozniak, P.C email, its attachments and data ('email") are intended to be Confidential and may contain Attorney

- Client Communications or Work Product. If you are not the intended recipient or may have received this message in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the email and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. Any use or distribution of any of the information in this email is Strictly Prohibited.

Fede ral Tax Advice Disclaimer: This email is not tax advice and is not intended be used for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any

matters addressed herein. IRS Circular 230.
§ 101.2 Promotion of American interests. Officers of the Foreign Service shall further the agricultural and commercial interests of the United States: ( a ) By carefully studying and reporting on the potentialities of their districts as a market for American products or as a competitor of American products in international trade.
( b ) By investigating and submitting World Trade Directory Reports on the general standing and distributing capacity of foreign firms within their districts.
( c ) By preparing and submitting upon request trade lists of commercial firms within their districts.
( d ) By keeping constantly on the alert for and submitting immediate reports on concrete trade opportunities.
( e ) By endeavoring to create, within the scope of the duties to which they are assigned, a demand for American products within their districts.
( f ) By facilitating and reporting on proposed visits of alien businessmen to the United States.
( g ) By taking appropriate steps to facilitate the promotion of such import trade into the United States as the economic interests of the United States may require.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-213-CV

DONALD P. PRENTISS, JR. APPELLANT

V.

ADRIENNE L. PRENTISS APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Donald P. Prentiss, Jr. filed a pro se notice of appeal of a 

“[j]udgment rendered May 21, 2010.” On June 24, 2010, we notified Donald that 

he had prematurely filed the notice of appeal because the trial court has not 

signed a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order and that we would 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless the parties furnished the court 

with a signed copy of the order that Donald seeks to appeal by July 14, 2010. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 27.1(a), 44.3. We have not received a response. 

Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order in this case, 

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 

43.2(f); Robertson v. Beadles, Newman & Lawler, P.C., No. 02-08-00382-CV, 

2009 WL 51034, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 8, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because of no final judgment or 

appealable order).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: August 19, 2010
#### Antonio Misel et al., Appellants-Respondents, v N.F.C. Cab Corp. et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 413]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about July 20, 1999, which, after a second jury trial, granted defendant Con Edison’s motion to set aside the jury verdict finding Con Edison 15% liable for plaintiffs injury, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an employee of a Con Edison contractor, sought damages for serious injuries sustained when he was struck while working at a repair site by a taxi cab owned by defendant N.F.C. Cab Corp. and operated by defendant Davidson. Following the first trial of this case, a judgment was entered, *inter alia,*dismissing plaintiffs claims against Con Edison and finding N.F.C. Cab 100% liable. The judgment, however, was reversed based upon the improper preclusion of the testimony of plaintiffs expert, the complaint against Con Edison reinstated and a new trial ordered solely as to the liability of Con Edison and the apportionment of liability as between N.F.C. Cab and Con Edison *(see, Misel v N.F.C. Cab Corp.,*240 AD2d 294). Upon retrial, the jury determined that Con Edison had been negligent and that it was 15% liable for plaintiffs harm.

*84The jury verdict holding Con Edison 15% liable was properly set aside in the presently appealed order, the motion court having correctly determined that, based upon the trial evidence, no valid line of reasoning would support a finding of liability against Con Edison *(see, Clark v Weber,*264 AD2d 569). It is plain, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s accident was caused not by the position of Con Edison’s truck or its safety cones but solely by the manner in which Davidson operated the N.F.C. cab. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4045 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4045

 To modify the Department of Defense Program Guidance relating to the 
 award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence administrative 
absence days to members of the reserve components to exempt any member 
  whose qualified mobilization commenced before October 1, 2011, and 
   continued on or after that date, from the changes to the program 
                guidance that took effect on that date.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2012

  Mr. Kline introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify the Department of Defense Program Guidance relating to the 
 award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence administrative 
absence days to members of the reserve components to exempt any member 
  whose qualified mobilization commenced before October 1, 2011, and 
   continued on or after that date, from the changes to the program 
                guidance that took effect on that date.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROGRAM GUIDANCE RELATING TO THE AWARD OF 
              POST-DEPLOYMENT/MOBILIZATION RESPITE ABSENCE 
              ADMINISTRATIVE ABSENCE DAYS TO MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE 
              COMPONENTS UNDER DOD INSTRUCTION 1327.06.

    Effective as of October 1, 2011, the changes made by the Secretary 
of Defense to the Program Guidance relating to the award of Post-
Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence administrative absence days to 
members of the reserve components under DOD Instruction 1327.06 shall 
not apply to a member of a reserve component whose qualified 
mobilization (as described in such program guidance) commenced before 
October 1, 2011, and continued on or after that date until the date the 
mobilization is terminated.
                                 <all>
```
### §2831. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 88–452, title II, §221, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 524; Pub. L. 89–253, §30(b), Oct. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 979; Pub. L. 89–794, title II, §218, Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1464, extended the program through June 30, 1970, and provided that only such sums may be appropriated as the Congress might authorize by law, prior to the general amendment of Part D of this subchapter by Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §104, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 705. See section 2837 of this title.
#### § 1005.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency.
### §274f–1. Public awareness; studies and demonstrations

#### (a) Organ donation public awareness program

The Secretary shall, directly or through grants or contracts, establish a public education program in cooperation with existing national public awareness campaigns to increase awareness about organ donation and the need to provide for an adequate rate of such donations.

#### (b) Studies and demonstrations

The Secretary may make peer-reviewed grants to, or enter into peer-reviewed contracts with, public and nonprofit private entities for the purpose of carrying out studies and demonstration projects to increase organ donation and recovery rates, including living donation.

#### (c) Grants to States

#### (1) In general

The Secretary may make grants to States for the purpose of assisting States in carrying out organ donor awareness, public education, and outreach activities and programs designed to increase the number of organ donors within the State, including living donors.

#### (2) Eligibility

To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, a State shall—

(A) submit an application to the Department in the form prescribed;

(B) establish yearly benchmarks for improvement in organ donation rates in the State; and

(C) report to the Secretary on an annual basis a description and assessment of the State's use of funds received under this subsection, accompanied by an assessment of initiatives for potential replication in other States.

#### (3) Use of funds

Funds received under this subsection may be used by the State, or in partnership with other public agencies or private sector institutions, for education and awareness efforts, information dissemination, activities pertaining to the State donor registry, and other innovative donation specific initiatives, including living donation.

#### (d) Educational activities

The Secretary, in coordination with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and other appropriate organizations, shall support the development and dissemination of educational materials to inform health care professionals and other appropriate professionals in issues surrounding organ, tissue, and eye donation including evidence-based proven methods to approach patients and their families, cultural sensitivities, and other relevant issues.

#### (e) Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Such authorization of appropriations is in addition to any other authorizations of appropriations that are available for such purpose.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §377A, as added Pub. L. 108–216, §4, Apr. 5, 2004, 118 Stat. 585.)
P.I 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

218) IV-C-185 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:03 AM Sheet 218 of 232 
P.2 

USB 

UJ 

£ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

DEC - 2 1991 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. William R. O'Keefe 

Vice President and 

Chief Operating Office 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street, Northwest 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Dear Mr. O'Keefe: 

a [I © d 0 w H Mil 

JAN I R 1992 ¥ 

(tfi~-r _.-, _ -

L.._; 

fit 

... i 

This is in response to your November 15, 1991 letter to 

William G. Rosenberg regarding onboard refueling vapor recovery 

systems. In your letter you addressed certain aspects of the 

safety consultation reflected in a recent exchange of 

correspondence between the Department of Transportation and 

EPA. We appreciate your comments on this issue. 

As you know, 

to Administrator 

Highway Traffic S 

respond to all si 

NHTSA study. The 

benefit of NHTSA' 

commenters about 

section (202(a)(6 

NHTSA's response. 

Office of General 

We intend to make 

this rulemaking. 

EPA indicated in its November 8, 1991 letter 

Jerry R. Curry that EPA needs the National 

afety Administration (NHTSA) to formally 

gnificant comments regarding the July 1991 

letter further noted that EPA must have the 

s expertise to address the points raised by 

the study for the consultation required by 

) to be meaningful. We have recently received 

It is being reviewed by EPA staff in the 

Counsel and the Office of Air and Radiation. 

a decision promptly on how to proceed with 

Thank you again for your letter. It will be included in 

the public docket. Please feel free to contact me if you 

require any additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

RICHARD O.WILSON 

Richard D.Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Public Docket A-87-11 

Printed on Recycled Paper
### §14045. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14045 was editorially reclassified as section 20123 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Gipson v. Commonwealth.

January 31, 1950.

E. B. Beatty, Special Judge.

Zeb A. Stewart, Assistant Attorney General, and A. E. Funk, Attorney General, for appellee.

Mann & Mann for appellant.

Van Sant, Commissioner

Reversing.

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced *145to confinement in the State Eeformatory for the remainder of his life.

It appears from the evidence that he was only sixteen (16) years of age at the time of his conviction. The record fails to show that following his arrest he was taken before the Juvenile Session of the County Court, or that the County Court relinquished jurisdiction over him in order to permit him to he proceeded against in accordance with the laws governing crimes.

"We consistently have held that in the prosecution of a juvenile in the Circuit Court, the record must show affirmatively that all steps necessary to vest jurisdiction in the Circuit Court have been taken. Such procedure is outlined in KES 199.080. Edwards v. Commonwealth, 264 Ky. 4, 94 S. W. 2d 25, and cases therein cited. Since the record fails to show that the procedure provided for in KES 199.080 was followed, all proceedings in the Circuit Court, including the indictment, were void. For this reason we are compelled to reverse the judgment; without prejudice, however, to the Commonwealth’s right to proceed in accordance with the statute above referred to.

The judgment is reversed.
#### STATE v. HILL

No. 69P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 213

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 April 1997.
#### § 270.8b-30 Additional exhibits.

A company may file such exhibits as it may desire, in addition to those required by the appropriate form. Such exhibits shall be so marked as to indicate clearly the subject matters to which they refer.

[18 FR 8576, Dec. 19, 1953]
### §19154. Collection of data on demographics of faculty

#### (a) Collection of data

#### (1) In general

Not later than 5 years after August 9, 2022, and at least every five years thereafter, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall carry out a survey to collect data from award recipients on the demographics of STEM faculty, by broad fields of STEM, at different types of institutions of higher education that receive Federal research funding.

#### (2) Survey considerations

To the extent practicable, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall survey, by sex, race, socioeconomic indicators, which may include employment status, occupation, educational attainment, parental education, and income, geographic location, ethnicity, citizenship status, and years since completion of doctoral degree—

(A) the number and percentage of faculty;

(B) the number and percentage of faculty at each rank;

(C) the number and percentage of faculty who are in nontenure-track positions, including teaching and research;

(D) the number and percentage of faculty who are reviewed for promotion, including tenure, and the percentage of that number who are promoted, including being awarded tenure;

(E) faculty years in rank;

(F) the number and percentage of faculty to leave tenure-track positions;

(G) the number and percentage of faculty hired, by rank; and

(H) the number and percentage of faculty in leadership positions.

#### (b) Existing surveys

The Director of the National Science Foundation, may, in modifying or expanding existing Federal surveys of higher education (as necessary)—

(1) take into account the considerations under subsection (a)(2) by collaborating with statistical centers at other Federal agencies; or

(2) make an award to an institution of higher education or nonprofit organization (or consortia thereof) to take such considerations into account.

#### (c) Reporting data

The Director of the National Science Foundation shall publish statistical summary data collected under this section, including as part of the National Science Foundation's report required by section 1885d of this title.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the National Science Foundation $4,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2023 through 2025 to develop and carry out the initial survey required under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title V, §10504, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1611.)
Exhibit 99 (a)

                                  News release

                              FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                            Court Sets Trial Date in
                            Coastal Petroleum Takings
                       Litigation Against State of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------

Tallahassee, Fla., November 27, 2001 -- Coastal Petroleum Company today said
that Florida's Leon County Circuit Court has set a trial date of September 30,
2002 for the Company's lawsuit against the State of Florida. In the lawsuit,
Coastal claims that the State has taken Coastal's 440,000-acre leasehold along
Florida's Gulf Coast without fairly compensating Coastal.

A Coastal spokesman said that the trial judge has set aside approximately two
weeks for the trial on the issue of whether the State has taken Coastal's
leases. If the judge rules in Coastal's favor, there will then be a second trial
before a jury to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded Coastal, the
spokesman said.

Coastal Petroleum Company is a majority-owned subsidiary of Coastal Caribbean
Oils & Minerals, Ltd., which is traded on the OTC Bulletin Board (COCBF.OB) and
traded on the Boston Stock Exchange (CCO-B; CCO-BN).

Statements included in this press release, which are not historical in nature
are intended to be, and are hereby identified as, "forward looking statements"
for purposes of the "Safe Harbor Statement" under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company cautions readers that forward looking
statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those indicated in the forward looking
statements. Among the risks and uncertainties is the uncertainty of any decision
favorable to Coastal Petroleum in its litigation against the state of Florida
and the substantial cost of continuing the litigation.

                    Contact: James R. Joyce at (203) 245-7664
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                        22,418
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 70,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (35,000)
<INVENTORY>                                   306,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              367,191
<PP&E>                                        601,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                (336,955)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                647,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,998,082
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      5,223
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3,862,729)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  647,532
<SALES>                                       129,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              129,814
<CGS>                                         119,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 182,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            100,909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (272,885)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (272,885)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (272,885)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.05)


</TABLE>