alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1420.1 Purpose and scope.

The regulations contained in this subchapter are designed to implement the provisions of the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. They prescribe the procedures and basic principles or criteria under which the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board or the General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, as applicable, will:

( a ) Supervise or conduct elections and determine whether a labor organization has been selected as an exclusive representative by a majority of the employees who cast valid ballots and otherwise administer the provisions of the Statute relating to the according of exclusive recognition to a labor organization;

( b ) Resolve complaints of alleged unfair labor practices;

( c ) Resolve issues relating to the obligation to bargain in good faith;

( d ) Resolve disputes concerning the effects, the interpretation, or a claim of breach of collective bargaining agreement, in accord with 22 U.S.C. 4114; and

( e ) Take any action considered necessary to administer effectively the provisions of the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 4107(c))

[46 FR 45861, Sept. 15, 1981]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Water levels and artesianpressure in observation wells in the United States in ... : with statementsconcerning previous work and results.**
 
1935 | 1936 | 1937 | 1938 | 1939
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.13:
Item Number:0625 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104674
 
August 21, 2019
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-3275 JESSIE L. FLETCHER,

Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT0752070493-I-1. ON MOTION Before BRYSON, 

### Circuit Judge. ORDER The Department of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition for a 5-day extension of time, until June 15, 2009, to file its brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

# JUN 2 9 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Daniel A. Perez, Esq. David A. Harrington, Esq. s20 

### JAL*

.. eD us.um- OE APPEALS THE FEDERAL CIRCUITFOR JUN 2 9 2009 JAN ii0korbui CLERK
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Frank Ciappetta. (B) The People of the State of New York v. Frank D. Jones. Jones. (C) The People of the State of New York v. Ralph Staiger. (D) The People of the State of New York v. James Carraway. (E) The People of the State of New York v. Michael Mercado. (F) The People of the State of New York v. Frank Briganti.

Motion for leave to reargue granted and upon reargument motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., of 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, is assigned as counsel for the appellant for the purposes of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [Same decision.] [Same decision.] Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ. [Same decision.] Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [Same decision.] Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Noreli Industries, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v Kleinert’s, Inc., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Kent Rubber International Ltd., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 7, 1976, as dismissed the first, second, third and fourth causes of action and the affirmative defenses predicated thereon of third-party plaintiff’s complaint, and granted judgment in favor of third-party defendant in sum of $113,394.63, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We have considered all the claims pressed by third-party plaintiff and find no merit to the appeal. We restrict our comments to the points hereinbelow referred to. Third-party defendant properly established its entitlement to payment of the purchase price for the merchandise which third-party plaintiff had accepted (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-607, subd [1]), less third-party plaintiff’s expenses for rebagging and relabeling some of the swim caps. The Trial Justice properly dismissed each of the four causes of action and the affirmative defenses predicated thereon of third-party plaintiff. The first cause of action and the affirmative defense for damages for late delivery, were properly dismissed as there was no showing third-party plaintiff had suffered any damages as a result of late delivery. The fourth cause of action and the affirmative defense for damages for breach of warranty by sample, were properly dismissed as there was no evidence the swim caps which were delivered failed to conform to the samples. The third and fourth causes of action and the affirmative defenses for breach of warranty of fitness and merchantability were properly dismissed as third-party plaintiff failed to establish the damages it allegedly sustained for breach of such warranties. The measure of damages for breach of warranty "is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted” (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-714, subd [2]). Third-party plaintiff’s argument that damages are to be ascertained from the actual sales price of the goods months after delivery and acceptance is without legal basis. Nor can such claim come within the purview of the caveat to subdivision (2) of section 2-714 of the Uniform Commercial Code, namely, that the rule of damages set forth is applicable "unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount”. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to adjourn the trial to accommodate *793one of the witnesses for third-party plaintiff. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Capozzoli and Yesawich, JJ.
| **Earnings Per Share and Stock Repurchase Activity -  Narrative (Details)** | Feb. 27, 2016 USD ($) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| **Earnings Per Share and Stock Repurchase Activity [Abstract]**             |                  |
| Stock repurchase program, remaining authorized repurchase amount            | $ 106,677,000         |
| Stock repurchase program, authorized amount                                 | $ 250,000,000         |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Earnings Per Share and Stock Repurchase Activity
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**clc_EarningsPerShareAndStockRepurchaseActivityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**clc_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Amount of stock repurchase plan authorized.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StockRepurchaseProgramAuthorizedAmount1**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Amount remaining of a stock repurchase plan authorized.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StockRepurchaseProgramRemainingAuthorizedRepurchaseAmount1**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SHERRI SILVER HALL, Appellant, vs. CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, Respondent. No. 67799



# FILED
MAR 1 0 2016

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
DEPUTY BY ci 

### ten*, Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and cause appearing, this appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney fees. NRAP 42(b). The injunction issued in our June 9, 2015, order is hereby dissolved.

It is so ORDERED.

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk Christopher Connell

(0) 1947A q3
# Support Documents for

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on

Premanufacture Notice (PMN)

P-00-317

EPA Docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT -2011-0577

# Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for

PMN P -00-317

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for

PMN P -00-317

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for

PMN P -00-317

# A-001

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P -00-317

# A-002

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P -00-317

# A-003

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P -00-317

### Final

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT PAGE 1 OF 3

CASE NUMBER(S): P-00-317

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

============================================================================= RELEASE ID#: 1 Number of Release Sites:

RELEASE ACTIVITY: ( )MFG (X)PRO ( )IND USE ( )COMM USE ( )CONS USE

_____________________________________________________________________________

RELEASE DESCRIPTION: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE

Total Releases:

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Release Days/yr: 0

Per Site Release:

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day)

REMARKS:

============================================================================= RELEASE ID#: 2 Number of Release Sites:

RELEASE ACTIVITY: ( )MFG ( )PRO (X)IND USE ( )COMM USE ( )CONS USE

_____________________________________________________________________________

RELEASE DESCRIPTION: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE

Total Releases:

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Release Days/yr: 0

Per Site Release:

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day)

REMARKS:

### INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT PAGE 2 OF 3

CASE NUMBER(S): P-00-317

### INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT PAGE 3 OF 3

CASE NUMBER(S): P000317
### §285f. Purpose of Institute

The general purpose of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is the conduct and support of research, training, health information dissemination, and other programs with respect to allergic and immunologic diseases and disorders and infectious diseases, including tropical diseases.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §446, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 855; amended Pub. L. 103–43, title IX, §901, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 164.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–43 inserted before period at end ", including tropical diseases".
AFS-09-218-E 

Jul 12 2010 

Mr. Freddy Pearce 

Director of Maintenance 

Aero Contractors. Ltd. 

P.O. Box 1139 

Smithfield, NC 27577 

Dear Mr. Pearce: 

This is in response to your letter dated April 17, 2009, petitioning the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Aero Contractors, Ltd. (Aero Contractors), for an 

exemption from § 125.226 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) in order to 

operate four EADS CASA CN-235 aircraft without a flight data recorder that records 88 

parameters as required by that regulation. 

Your letter indicates that the four aircraft were manufactured in March 2002 and “imported 

under the guideline as operating as a 14 CFR Part 91 aircraft.” The FAA presumes that 

statement means that you purchased or leased the aircraft with the intent to operate them 

under part 91. Your letter indicates that you now wish to operate them under part 125, and 

that the aircraft do not meet the flight recorder requirements of § 125.226. You state that the 

aircraft do meet the requirements for § 125.225 by recording the 11 parameters required by 

that regulation. You stated that you would operate the airplane under § 125.225 “until 

February 2, 2012, which is the mandatory date for all transport category aircraft to meet § 

125.226 Appendix E” while you search for a more economical solution to compliance with § 

125.226. 

Your letter indicates a misunderstanding of the regulations of part 125. To operate under 

part 125, § 125.226(e) requires that airplanes manufactured after August 18, 2000, must 

record the first 57 parameters of flight data listed in § 121.226(a) in accordance with 

Appendix E of part 125. Aircraft manufactured after August 19, 2002, must record all 88 

parameters. Compliance is required as of the date the aircraft are brought into a part 125 

operation; they cannot be operated under part 125 without the equipment. 
2

The February 2, 2012, date to which you refer is listed in § 125.3(d) and states that after that 

date, no deviations (not exemptions) from the flight recorder requirements of part 125 will be 

allowed. If you have a previously issued deviation, it will no longer be effective after that 

date. That section does not provide new deviations, nor does it forgive or delay compliance 

with § 125.226 when no deviation exists. 

In either case, compliance with § 125.225 is not an option. That section is applicable only to 

certain older aircraft listed by model in § 125.226(l)(2). Compliance with § 125.225 is not 

optional for newer airplanes. 

In addition to this misunderstanding of the flight recorder regulations of part 125, your request 

for an exemption does not include all of the information required by 14 CFR part 11, 

including an explanation why a grant of your request would be in the public interest. 

Accordingly, your request for an exemption is denied, and Docket number FAA-2009-0388 is 

being closed. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
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 Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 040910261-4325-02; I.D. 072704A]
RIN 0648-AS08
 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
 ACTION: Final rule; fishing season notification; correction.
 SUMMARY: This document corrects the season closure dates in a final rule published November 30, 2004. Corrections concern the first trimester season closure dates for large coastal sharks (LCS) for the Gulf of Mexico and the first trimester season closure dates for the South Atlantic.
 DATES: Effective January 1, 2005.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Rilling by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 30, 2004, NMFS published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     a final rule that established the opening and closure dates of the first trimester season for the Atlantic commercial shark fishery (69 FR 69537). In that rule, the closure dates for LCS in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic in Table 1 were inverted. This document corrects that error. Correction Rule FR Doc. 04-26414 published on November 30, 2004 (69 FR 69537), to be effective January 1, 2005, is corrected as follows. On page 69538, in Table 1, the first two rows are corrected to read as follows: Species Group
Region
First Trimester Season Opening Dates
First Trimester Season Closure DatesLarge Coastal Sharks
Gulf of Mexico
January 1 - February 28, 2005, 11:30 p.m. local time
February 28, - April 30, 2005, 11:30 p.m. local timeSouth Atlantic
January 1 - February 15, 2005, 11:30 p.m. local time
February 15, - April 30, 2005, 11:30 p.m. local time*    *    *    *     *
 Authority:
                    16 U.S.C. 1801, 
                        *et seq.* Dated: December 7, 2004. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.


[FR Doc. 04-27178 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
ACCEPTED

12-14-00319-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

6/19/2015 1:49:38 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 6/19/2015 1:49:38 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
# Subpart 3417.1—Multiyear Contracting

**Parent topic:**PART 3417—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

## 3417.104 General.

(b) The Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 17.104(b).
#### § 1422.16 Decision.

The Board will issue a decision directing an election or dismissing the petition, or making other disposition of the matters before it.
#### Wilford Chavers, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 31829.)

Same decision and like cause of action as in *Gurevitch*v. *State of New York (ante,*p. 863) decided herewith. Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.
2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-10-2015 

# I n R e: C ur t i s M a rsh al l D i xon

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s J une i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: C ur t i s M a r sh al l Di xon " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 593. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/593

### DLD

- 231 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 15

- 1358

___________ IN RE: CURTIS MARSHALL DIXON, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the Unit ed States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. No. 2 :00

- cr - 00146) District Judge : James Knoll Gardner

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

June 4, 2015 Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit J udges

(Opinion filed : June 10, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *



### _________ PER CURIAM Petitioner Curtis Marshall Dixon, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, alleging extraordinary delay in the adjudicatio n of his motion for a writ of error coram nobis by the United States

* 

### This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

### 2

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in E.D. Pa. No. 2:00

- cr - 00146. Thereafter, on March 17, 2015, the District Court denied the motion. Dixon sought a certificate of appealability, which the District Court also denied. Because the motion has been resolved by the District Court, Dixon has received the relief he sought from this Court, and we will dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dis missed as moot.”)
#### § 274.5 Form N-5, for registration statement of small business investment company under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

This form shall be used for the registration statement under both sections 6 and 7 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g) and section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8(b)), by a small business investment company which is licensed as such under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 or which has received preliminary approval of the Small Business Administration and has been notified by that Administration that it may submit a license application.

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form N-5, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*