alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 12, 2012

Mary Colligan

Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources

Northeast Regional Office

NOAA Fisheries Service

55 Great Republic Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930-2276

Re: ESA Section 7 Consultation on the Deepening Project’s Effects on Atlantic Sturgeon and 

Shortnose Sturgeon in the Delaware River

Dear Ms. Colligan:

We submit this further comment regarding the impacts of the Delaware River Main Navigation 

Channel Deepening Project on the Atlantic sturgeon.

Specifically, we submit for your consideration the attached paper titled “Endangered Atlantic 

Sturgeon in the Delaware River Require Higher Standards for Dissolved Oxygen,” Desmond M. 

Kahn and Matthew Fisher, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, June 4, 2012. This paper 

concludes that “[Y]oung-of-year Atlantic sturgeon suffer reduced growth and increased mortality at 

reduced levels of dissolved oxygen . . . . The current hypoxic conditions in the tidal Delaware River 

in summer are dangerously close to lethal limits for survival and growth of young-of-year Atlantic 

sturgeon.” 

As we stated in our comment letter dated April 6, 2012, at pp. 18-19, the Deepening Project is likely 

further to exacerbate the problem of inadequate dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in Atlantic sturgeon 

habitat by directly and indirectly adversely affecting submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the 

Project area. This issue was flagged by the National Marine Fisheries Service in its April 16, 2009 

Essential Fish Habitat comment letter to the Corps. Although we submitted extensive comments to 

the Corps on this issue in our July 6, 2011 letter1on the 2011 Draft Environmental Assessment, the 

Corps entirely failed to address or analyze the Deepening Project’s impacts to SAV and 

 

1 We provided you with a copy of our July 6, 2011 comment letter and supporting documents.
page 2 of 2

consequences for DO levels in either its Final Environmental Assessment or its Biological 

Assessment. 

The recent paper by Kahn and Fisher further underscores that the Deepening Project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of Atlantic sturgeon.

Thank you for considering these comments and attached documents.

Sincerely,

Maya K. van Rossum

the Delaware Riverkeeper

Encl.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Brandon, Appellant, v Roy Bombard, as Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 28, 1976, which (1) dismissed the petition and (2) transferred the application to the Supreme Court, New York County, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 683.1. Judgment modified by deleting therefrom the provision which dismissed the petition. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. There is no merit to this appeal and it should never have been taken. However, we have modified the judgment to conform to the requirements of 22 NYCRR 683.1. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
### The 22 nd 

### Navajo Nation Council — Office of the Speaker

Contact: Michael Wero, Communications Director Phone: (928) 871-7160

nccpress@gmail.com www.navajonationcouncil.org



## Navajo Nation Council Approves APS Four Corners

Lease Extension

Window Rock, AZ — Today

, the 22 nd Navajo Nation Council, during a special session, approved the Arizona Public Service (APS) Lease extension for the Four Corners Power Plant located on the Navajo Nation near Fruitland, New Mexico. The lease, set to terminate in 2016, will now expire in 2041. In the extension, APS will guarantee annual payments to the Navajo Nation for $7 million, with cost adjustments, even if the plant closes before the end of the term.

The measure passed by a vote of 18-2 and will now seek Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly’s approval.

“The majority of the Council recognized the economic importance for the Navajo Nation to continue with this Lease,” said Navajo Nation Speaker of the Council, Johnny Naize. “While some may not agree with the current terms, please know that numerous hours of negotiation were spent to create a fair revised agreement for the Navajo People.”

The Four Corners Power Plant, which gets it coal from the nearby Navajo Coal Mine, currently generates 2,040 megawatts, providing power to about 300,000 households in New Mexico, Arizona, California and Texas. Both the Plant and Mine employ roughly 1000 people, 75 percent of whom are Native American with a majority who are members of the Navajo Nation.

Last October, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed rule that would force the plant to cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent through the closing of three of its oldest five units by 2014 and retrofitting the remaining two.

This was acknowledged by the Council which al so added an amendment calling on continuing the effort by the facility to keep future emissions low as newer technologies develop.

The first Lease was established in 1960 with the initial construction of the Four Corners Power Plant. In 1966 the Lease was amended, allowing for the expansion of the facility. Additional changes were

added in 1985.

Other parties in the current Lease extension included the El Paso Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, the Salt River Project, Sout hern California Edison, and Tucson Electric.

Southern California Edison has notified Leaseholders it intends to terminate its ownership in the Four Corners Plant on or before 2016. APS has negotiated a sale agreement to acquire their share pending regulatory approval.

# # # February 15, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Copano Energy, L.L.C. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2006, I, John R. Eckel, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 16, 2006 | /s/ John R. Eckel, Jr.                       |   |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | John R. Eckel, Jr.                           |   |
|                      | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

135053(12) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR,

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

 SC: 135053 

v ADB: 06-000036-GA 

PATRICIA COOPER,

Respondent-Appellant. 

____________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Family Law Section of the 

State Bar of Michigan for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered and it is 

GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 11, 2008 

 Clerk
§ 232.1009 Financial reports. ( a ) The borrower must provide HUD and lender an audited annual financial report based on an examination of its books and records, in such form and substance required by HUD in accordance with 24 CFR 5.801 and 24 CFR 200.36.
( b ) Operators must submit financial statements quarterly within 60 calendar days of the date of the end of each fiscal quarter, setting forth both quarterly and fiscal year-to-date information, except that the final fiscal year end quarter must be submitted to HUD within 90 calendar days of the end of the quarter, in accordance with 24 CFR 5.801(c)(4), or within such additional time as may be provided by the Commissioner for good cause shown. HUD may direct that such forms be submitted to the lender or another third party in addition to or in lieu of submission to HUD.
[79 FR 55362, Sept. 16, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6499

WHEELER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM JEDNORSKI, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-1427-WMN)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wheeler Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Williams v. Jednorski, No. CA-96-1427-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 5, 1997). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 9, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-40528

_____________________ ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus INDYMAC BANK FSB, Inc., as Successor in interest to Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., formerly known as INMC Mortgage Holdings; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE BAR OF TEXAS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS; KENNETH HAMMACK, Sheriff, Polk County, TX; CLEBURNE SWILLEY, Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin USDC No. 9:05-CV-70

__________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. 2 PER CURIAM: *
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given. Appellant cites cases and statutes and com plains of injuries, but never alleges anything to support a claim of liability entitling him to relief against these appellees. The statem ents and arguments he makes consist only of conclusions about his injuries and com plaints irrelevant to this appeal. AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ Freddie M. KotekName:
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Joe Endelli, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,600.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. *618Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive
        - President's Food Safety Working Group

#  President's Food Safety Working Group 

**Collected by:** Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive 

**Archived since:**May, 2015

**Description:**
In his weekly address on March 14, 2009, President Barack Obama announced the creation of a new Food Safety Working Group to advise him on how to upgrade the U.S. food safety system.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal

**Creator:**    	    U.S. Department of Agriculture,     	    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

**Collector:**    	    U.S. Government Publishing Office

## Narrow Your Results

### 

            There are no further ways to narrow your results.           

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### URL:     http://www.foodsafetyworkinggroup.gov/Home.htm

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
§ 970.13 Environmental review requirements. ( a ) Activities under this part (including de minimis demolition pursuant to § 970.27) are subject to HUD environmental regulations in 24 CFR part 58. However, HUD may make a finding in accordance with 24 CFR 58.11(d) of this title and may itself perform the environmental review under the provisions of 24 CFR part 50 if a PHA objects in writing to the responsible entity performing the review under 24 CFR part 58.
( b ) The environmental review is limited to the demolition or disposition action and any known re-use, and is not required for any unknown future re-use. Factors that indicate that the future site reuse can reasonably be considered to be known include the following: ( 1 ) Private, Federal, state, or local funding for the site reuse has been committed;
( 2 ) A grant application involving the site has been filed with the Federal government or a state or local unit of government;
( 3 ) The Federal government or a state or unit of local government has made a commitment to take an action, including a physical action, that will facilitate a particular reuse of the site; and
( 4 ) Architectural, engineering, or design plans for the reuse exist that go beyond preliminary stages.
( c ) In the case of a demolition or disposition made necessary by a disaster that the President has declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 *et seq.,* or a disaster that has been declared under state law by the officer or entity with legal authority to make such declaration, pursuant to 24 CFR 50.43 and 24 CFR 58.33, the provisions of 40 CFR 1506.11 will apply.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of RelationServe Media, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shawn
McNamara, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
             of 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company.

March 20, 2006

                                              /s/ Shawn McNamara
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name:  Shawn McNamara
                                              Title: Principal Executive Officer
```
### §53506. Investment and fiduciary requirements

(a) In General.—Amounts in a capital construction fund shall be kept in the depository specified in the agreement and shall be subject to trustee and other fiduciary requirements prescribed by the Secretary. Except as provided in subsection (b), amounts in the fund may be invested only in interest-bearing securities approved by the Secretary.

(b) Stock Investments.—

(1) In general.—With the approval of the Secretary, an agreed percentage (but not more than 60 percent) of the assets of the fund may be invested in the stock of domestic corporations that—

(A) is fully listed and registered on an exchange registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a national securities exchange; and

(B) would be acquired by a prudent investor seeking a reasonable income and the preservation of capital.

(2) Preferred stock.—The preferred stock of a corporation is deemed to satisfy the requirements of this subsection, even though it may not be registered and listed because it is nonvoting stock, if the common stock of the corporation satisfies the requirements and the preferred stock otherwise would satisfy the requirements.

(c) Maintaining Agreed Percentage.—If at any time the fair market value of the stock in the fund is more than the agreed percentage of the assets in the fund, any subsequent investment of amounts deposited in the fund, and any subsequent withdrawal from the fund, shall be made in a way that tends to restore the fair market value of the stock to not more than the agreed percentage.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1594.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53506 | 46 App.:1177(c). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title VI, §607(c), 49 Stat. 2005; June 23, 1938, ch. 600, §§23–28, 52 Stat. 960; Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §10, 53 Stat. 1185; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §§17–19, 66 Stat. 764; Pub. L. 85–637, Aug. 14, 1958, 72 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 86–518, §1, June 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 87–45, §6, May 27, 1961, 75 Stat. 91; Pub. L. 87–271, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 570; restated Pub. L. 91–469, §21(a), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1027; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(97)(A), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 162. |

Section

In subsection (b)(1)(B), the words "prudent investor" are substituted for "prudent men of discretion and intelligence in such matters" to eliminate unnecessary words.
§ 945.103 General policies. ( a ) *Agency participation.* Participation in this program is limited to public housing agencies (PHAs) (as this term is defined in 24 CFR 913.102) that elect to designate public housing projects for occupancy by disabled families, elderly families, or disabled families and elderly families, as provided by this part.
( b ) *Eligible housing* — ( 1 ) *Designation of public housing.* Projects eligible for designation under this part are public housing projects as described in the definition of “project” in § 945.105.
( 2 ) *Additional housing resources.* To meet the housing and supportive service needs of elderly families, and disabled families, including non-elderly disabled families, who will not be housed in a designated project, PHAs shall utilize housing resources that they own, control, or have received preliminary notification that they will obtain (e.g., section 8 vouchers). They also may utilize housing resources for which they plan to apply during the period covered by the allocation plan, and that they have a reasonable expectation of obtaining. PHAs also may utilize, to the extent practicable, any housing facilities that they own or control in which supportive services are already provided, facilitated or coordinated, such as mixed housing, shared housing, family housing, group homes, and congregate housing.
( 3 ) *Exemption of mixed population projects.* A PHA with a public housing project with a mixed population of elderly families and disabled families that plans to house them in such project in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR part 960, subpart D, is not required to meet the designation requirements of this part.
( c ) *Family Participation in designated housing* — ( 1 ) *Voluntary participation.* The election to reside in designated housing is voluntary on the part of a family. No disabled family or elderly family may be required to reside in designated housing, nor shall a decision not to reside in designated housing adversely affect the family with respect to occupancy of another appropriate project.
( 2 ) *Meeting stated eligibility requirements.* Nothing in this part shall be construed to require or permit a PHA to accept for admission to a designated project a disabled family or elderly family who does not meet the stated eligibility requirements for occupancy in the project (for example, income), as set forth in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR parts 912 and 913, and in the PHA's admission policies.
[59 FR 17662, Apr. 13, 1994, as amended at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024]