alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3285.905 Heating oil systems. It is recommended that the installation instructions include the following information related to heating oil systems, when applicable: ( a ) Homes equipped with oil burning furnaces should have their oil supply tank and piping installed and tested on-site, in accordance with NFPA 31, Standard for the Installation of Oil Burning Equipment, 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 3285.4) or the LAHJ, whichever is more stringent.
( b ) The oil burning furnace manufacturer's instructions should be consulted for pipe size and installation procedures.
( c ) Oil storage tanks and pipe installations should meet all applicable local regulations.
( d ) *Tank installation requirements.* ( 1 ) The tank should be located where it is accessible to service and supply and where it is safe from fire and other hazards.
( 2 ) In flood hazard areas, the oil storage tank should be anchored and elevated to or above the design flood elevation, or anchored and designed to prevent flotation, collapse, or permanent lateral movement during the design flood.
( 3 ) *Leak test procedure.* Before the system is operated, it should be checked for leaks in the tank and supply piping, in accordance with NFPA 31, Standard for the Installation of Oil Burning Equipment, 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 3285.4) or the requirements of the LAHJ, whichever is more stringent.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Glen Kitto 

8723 Bacardi Drive

Dallas, TX 75238

Dear Mr. Kitto:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your July 13, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2901, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
### §620o. Definitions

As used in this chapter—

The terms "Colorado River Basin", "Colorado River Compact", "Colorado River System", "Lee Ferry", "States of the Upper Division", "Upper Basin", and "domestic use" shall have the meaning ascribed to them in article II of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact;

The term "States of the Upper Colorado River Basin" shall mean the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming;

The term "Upper Colorado River Basin" shall have the same meaning as the term "Upper Basin";

The term "Upper Colorado River Basin Compact" shall mean that certain compact executed on October 11, 1948 by commissioners representing the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and consented to by the Congress of the United States of America by Act of April 6, 1949 (63 Stat. 31);

The term "Rio Grande Compact" shall mean that certain compact executed on March 18, 1938, by commissioners representing the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas and consented to by the Congress of the United States of America by Act of May 31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785);

The term "Treaty with the United Mexican States" shall mean that certain treaty between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed at Washington, District of Columbia, February 3, 1944, relating to the utilization of the waters of the Colorado River and other rivers, as amended and supplemented by the protocol dated November 14, 1944, and the understandings recited in the Senate resolution of April 18, 1945, advising and consenting to ratification thereof.

(Apr. 11, 1956, ch. 203, §17, formerly §16, 70 Stat. 111; temporarily renumbered §17, Pub. L. 111–11, title X, §10401(b)(1), Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1371.)

#### Renumbering of Section

For termination of renumbering of this section by section 10701(e)(2) of Pub. L. 111–11, see Termination Date of 2009 Amendment note below.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of April 6, 1949, referred to in text, is act Apr. 6, 1949, ch. 48, 63 Stat. 31, which is not classified to the Code.

Act of May 31, 1939, referred to in text, is act May 31, 1939, ch. 155, 53 Stat. 785, which is not classified to the Code.

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

#### Termination Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–11 to be null and void on issuance of a court order terminating a certain Agreement and Contract between New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, and the United States, see section 10701(e)(2) of Pub. L. 111–11, set out as an Agreement note under section 620 of this title.
### §1110. Daily examination of Congressional Record for immediate ordering of documents for official use; limit; bills and resolutions

The heads of executive departments, independent agencies and establishments, respectively, shall cause daily examination of the Congressional Record for the purpose of noting documents, reports, and other publications of interest to their departments, and shall cause an immediate order to be sent to the Director of the Government Publishing Office for the number of copies of the publications required for official use, not to exceed, however, the number of bureaus in the department and divisions in the office of the head. The Director of the Government Publishing Office shall send to each executive department, independent agency and establishment, as soon as printed, five copies of public bills and resolutions, except to the State Department, to which he shall send ten copies of bills and resolutions. When the head of a department, independent agency or establishment desires a greater number of a class of bills or resolutions for official use, the Director of the Government Publishing Office shall furnish them on requisition promptly made.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1262; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §215 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §90, 28 Stat. 623; June 20, 1936, ch. 630, title IX, §14, 49 Stat. 1553).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer" wherever appearing.
Editorial Note on Part 42
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 42.62 Personal appearance and interview of applicant. ( a ) *Personal appearance of applicant before consular officer.* Every alien applying for an immigrant visa, including an alien whose application is executed by another person pursuant to § *42.63(a)(2)*, shall be required to appear personally before a consular officer for the execution of the application or, if in Taiwan, before a designated officer of the American Institute in Taiwan, except that the personal appearance of any child under the age of 14 may be waived at the officer's discretion.
( b ) *Interview by consular officer.* ( 1 ) Every alien executing an immigrant visa application must be interviewed by a consular officer who shall determine on the basis of the applicant's representations and the visa application and other relevant documentation— ( i ) The proper immigrant classification, if any, of the visa applicant, and
( ii ) The applicant's eligibility to receive a visa.
( 2 ) The officer has the authority to require that the alien answer any question deemed material to these determinations.
[86 FR 70740, Dec. 13, 2021]
### **CHAPTER 49—NATIONAL LANDSLIDE PREPAREDNESS**

Sec.
3101.
Definitions.
3102.
National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program.
3103.
Ground subsidence.
3104.
3D elevation program.
### §390h–18. Irvine basin groundwater and surface water improvement projects

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Irvine Ranch Water District, California, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, and construction of projects to naturally treat impaired surface water, reclaim and reuse impaired groundwater, and provide brine disposal within the San Diego Creek Watershed.

#### (b) Cost share

The Federal share of the costs of the projects authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.

#### (c) Limitation

The Secretary shall not provide funds for the operation or maintenance of a project authorized by this section.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1636, as added Pub. L. 108–233, §2(a), May 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 654.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Another section 1636 of Pub. L. 102–575 was renumbered 1637 and is classified to section 390h–19 of this title.
Exhibit
      99.2














**REPORT
      OF INDEPENDENT**


**REGISTERED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








To
      the Board of Directors


Structured
      Obligations Corporation


New
      York, New York








We
      have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor)
      and U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement
      and
      the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2004-1 (the Agreements) relating to the
      administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited
      in or held by the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1 for the year ended December
      31,
      2006.  Depositor’s management is responsible for compliance with those
      requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
      compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.





Our
      examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
      on a test basis, evidence about Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with those
      requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we
      considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
      examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our
      examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor’s and Trustee’s
      compliance with specified requirements.





In
      our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with
      the
      requirements described above of the Agreements for the year ended December
      31,
      2006.





This
      report is intended solely for the information and use of Structured Obligations
      Corporation, U.S. Bank National Association, the Securities and Exchange
      Commission and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1,
      and
      is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those
      specified parties.








/s/
      RubinBrown LLP




St.
      Louis, Missouri


March
      2, 2007
#### § 96.90 Scope.

The provisions in this subpart govern the dissemination and reporting of information on accredited agencies and approved persons by accrediting entities.

[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
UNI T E D S T A T E S E N V IR O N M E N T A L P R O T E C T I O N A G E NC Y

R E G I O N I X

75 Ha w tho r n e S t r ee t

S a n F r a n ci s c o

, C A 9 4 10 5

November 1, 2011

Dr

. C hun g S

. L i u, D e pu t y E x ec u ti v e O f f i c er

S c i e n ce a nd T ec hno l og y A dv a n ce m e n t

S ou t h C o a s t A i r Q u a li t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t

21865 C op l e y Dr i v e

D i a m ond B a r

, C a li f

o r n i a 91765

- 4178

D ear Dr

. L i u :

Th a nk y o u f

o r y ou r sub m i ss i on o f t h e S ou t h C o a s t A i r Q u a li t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t ’ s ( SC AQ M D) 2 011

A nnu a l A i r Q u a li t y Mon it o r i n g N e t w o r k P l a n. W e h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e su b mitt e d do c u m e n t a nd h a v e

f ound t h a t t h e p l a n i s c o m p l e t e

, i n f o r m a ti v e , d e t a il e d a nd m ee t s a ll o f t h e r e qu i re m e n t s o f 40 C F R 5 8.10.

W e h a v e a l so re v i e w e d c o mm e n t s sub mitt e d du r i ng t h e pub li c c o mm e n t p e r i od h e l d b y SC AQ M D a n d

h a v e d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e c u rre n t n e t w o r k, a s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e a nnu a l n e t w o r k p l a n, m ee t s o r e x cee ds

c u rre n t E P A mi n im u m m on it o r i n g re qu i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h a t 40 C F R 58, A p p e nd i x D

, S ec ti on 4.7.1.

W h il e t h i s l e tt er

s er v e s a s o ff

i c i a l a pp r o v a l o f t h e a nnu a l n e t w o r k p l a n, it d o e s no t c ons tit u t e a pp r o v a l o f

t h e s y s t e m m od i f

i ca ti on s t h a t are p r opo s e d i n t h e p l a n f o r t h e f u t u r e

. W e w ill c on ti nu e t o w o r k w it h

y o u r d i s t r i c t t o r e v i e w s y s t e m c h a n g e s a s t h e y p r o cee d

.

I f y ou h a v e a n y qu e s ti o n s r e g ar d i n g t h i s l e tt er o r t h e e n c l os e d c o mm e n t s, p l ea s e f ee l f r ee t o c on t a c t m e

a t ( 415 ) 972

- 3851 o r M e r e d it h K u rp i us a t ( 415 ) 9 4 7

- 4534.

S i n cere l y

,

/ s /

M a tt h e w L a k i n, M a n a g e r

A i r Q u a li t y A n a l y s i s Of

f i c e

A i r D i v i s i on

cc : Dr

. P h il F i n e

, SC AQ M D

Dr

. J a son L o w

, SC AQ M D

K are n M a g li a no, C A RB
### §8142. Statement of purpose

The primary purpose of this subchapter is to assist the efforts of States, local governments, neighborhood and other organizations to provide a more suitable living environment, expand cultural opportunities, and to the extent practicable, stimulate economic opportunities, primarily for the low and moderate income residents of communities and neighborhoods in need of conservation and revitalization, through the utilization, design or development of artistic, cultural, or historic resources.

(Pub. L. 95–557, title VIII, §803, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2122.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge James Ware

8/11/2010

Case 3:09-cv-02079-JCS Document 369 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
September 27, 2010 11th August 

Case 3:09-cv-02079-JCS Document 369 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 09-2148 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 3/26/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ROY BRIDGEFORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEN CURRY, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-2148 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

This is a civil rights action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff was ordered to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by

September 14, 2009 or face dismissal of the action. Plaintiff still has not filed a complete

application or paid the filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint, and thereby the action,

is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. This order

terminates Docket No. 11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02148-RS Document 17 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0143

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BENJAMIN EUGENE COLE JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 8, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2023

08/02/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0143
### §2426. Title to newly constructed facilities

#### (a) New projects and facilities

All new projects or facilities constructed in accordance with this subchapter shall remain under the jurisdiction and control of the non-Federal borrower subject to the terms of the repayment agreement.

#### (b) Existing projects and facilities

Nothing in this subchapter affects the title of—

(1) reclamation projects authorized prior to December 22, 2006;

(2) works supplemental to existing reclamation projects; or

(3) works constructed to rehabilitate existing reclamation projects.

(Pub. L. 109–451, title II, §207, Dec. 22, 2006, 120 Stat. 3360.)
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet at the USDA Service Center in Redding, California, on January 5, February 4, and March 3 of 2005. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss proposed projects under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

# DATES:

January 5, February 4, and March 3, of 2005.

# ADDRESSES:

The meetings will be held at the USDA Service Center, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California 96002.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael R. Odle, Asst. Public Affairs Officer and RAC Coordinator.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meetings are open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee.

Dated: December 17, 2004.

J. Sharon Heywood,

Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

[FR Doc. 04-28371  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
March 16 

UNITED STATES

D

I

STRICT COURT

NORTHERN

DIST

RI

CT

OF CALIFORNIA

Judge

Vaughn

R

Walker
#### Norbert Roesler et al., as Trustees, Plaintiffs, v. H. Christian Sonne, Individually and as Trustee, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. N. V. Nederlandsche Standaard-Bank, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. South Ridge Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Amsinck Sonne Corporation, Defendant, and H. Christian Sonne, Individually and as Trustee, Impleaded-Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. N. V. Nederlandsche Standaard-Bank, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

Orders entered December 5, 195-8, in each of the above-entitled actions unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the third-party defendant in each action, and the motions to set aside service of the summons and third-party complaints and to strike out the third-party complaints granted, with $10 costs. A foreign corporation may consent to jurisdiction by designating a person to accept process on its behalf. Such consent and authorization, however, must be clear and unequivocal. The March 19, 1957 letter, upon which the third-party plaintiff predicates his claim of jurisdiction by consent, does not meet this test. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not t o be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NOS. 2012-079 & 2012-080

MAY TERM, 2012

Jeffrey P. Lamothe } APPEALED FROM: } } Superior Court, Rutland Unit,

v. } Civil Division } Cohen & Rice Law Firm and Julie Lamothe } DOCKET NO . 115-3-11 Rdcv

Trial Judge: Mary Miles Teachout

Jeffrey P. Lamothe } }

v. } }

Cohen & Rice Law Firm and Rebecca Rice, Esq. } } DOCKET NO. 116-3-11 Rdcv

In the above-entitled causes, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals the superior court’s entry of sum mary judgment dismissing his claims of legal malpractice against his former bankruptcy law yers. We affirm.

After plaintiff filed his suit, defendants served h im with discovery requests seeking disclosure of expert witnesses. Plaintiff made no disclosure in response to the requests. The superior court then granted defendants’ motion to c ompel disclosure. When no disclosure was forthcoming, defendants moved first for preclusion of expert testimony based on his failure to disclose an expert and then for summary judgment ba sed upon the general rule that, “[w]here a professional’s lack of care is so apparent that onl y common knowledge and experience are needed to comprehend it,” the elements of legal mal practice “must be established by expert testimony to assist the trier of fact in determinin g negligence.” Estate of Fleming v. Nicholson, 168 Vt. 495, 497 (1998) (noting that claims of negl igence by professionals are generally “demonstrated using expert testimony” and that expe rt testimony is required if “the alleged negligent conduct is a matter of judgment unique to that profession”). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was supported by a statement of un disputed facts attempting to characterize the essence of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff respo nded by filing a list of sums that he claimed defendants owed him, but failed to articulate any a pparent act of malpractice that could be maintained without expert testimony. Accordingly, the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to plaintiff’s c laims.

In his two one-page briefs submitted on appeal, pla intiff fails to state any claim of error or articulate any claims against defendants on whic h he could prevail without the benefit of expert testimony. Indeed, the briefs state little more than that his attorneys failed to file his bankruptcy paperwork so as to prevent the repossess ion of his motorcycle. We find no basis to2

disturb the superior court’s grant of summary judgm ent because plaintiff fails to present any facts or law suggesting that he has viable claims o n which he could prevail without the benefit of expert testimony.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________ John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice