alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.O. Box2815Sacramento, CA 95812-2815

Dear Ms. Witherspoon:

As a “serious” nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, the Sacramento

region is required to submit a reasonable further progress evaluation per sections

172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B) of the Clean AirAct. Enclosed are multiple copies of

the Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Rate-of-Progress (ROP) Planfor ARB’s approval and submittal to EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan

(SIP). This ROP Plan was developed cooperatively and adopted by all of the following air

districts in the Sacramento region:

Air District Public Hearing Adoption Date

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD January 26, 2006Feather River AQMD February 6, 2006

El Dorado County AQMD February 7, 2006

Yolo-Solano AQMD February 8, 2006

Placer County APCD February 9, 2006

This ROP Plan demonstrates that the Sacramento region will meet the federal 8-hour

ozone requirements for reasonable further progress toward attaining the ozone standard

from 2002-2008, updates the emissions inventory, and sets a new Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budget for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, this ROP Plan

contains an analysis which fulfills a prior ozone SIP requirement for a 15 percent volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions reduction during 1990-1 996.

I would like to thank you for your staff’s assistance in preparing this report, particularly,

Gary Honcoop, Sylvia Morrow, Doug Thompson, and Pam Burmich. If you have any

questions regarding the ROP Plan, please contact me at (916) 874-4802 or Ms. Brigette

Tollstrup, Manager of the Program Coordination Division at (916) 874-4832. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814-1 908

916/874-4800 I 916/874-4899 fax

www.airquality.org

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Signed Resolutions for each d

Proof of publication (9 papers)

Public Notice

Public Comments and Responses on draft plan

Electronic file copy of inventory and technical support materialscc (without attachments):

Linda Murchison, ARB

Gary Honcoop, ARB

Marcella McTaggart, El Dorado County AQMD

Dave Valler, Feather River AQMD

Tom Christofk, Placer County APCD

Mat Ehrhardt, Yolo-Solano AQMD

Brigette Tolistrup, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
### §1505. Proceedings for escheat of improperly held lands

It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, when he shall be informed or have reason to believe that lands in any of the Territories of the United States are being held contrary to the provisions of this chapter, to institute or cause to be instituted suit in behalf of the United States in the district court of the Territory in the district where such land or a part thereof may be situated, praying for the escheat of the same on behalf of the United States to the United States. Before any such suit is instituted the Attorney General shall give or cause to be given ninety days' notice by registered letter of his intention to sue, or by personal notice directed to or delivered to the owner of said land, or the person who last rendered the same for taxation, or his agent, and to all other persons having an interest in such lands of which he may have actual or constructive notice. In the event personal notice cannot be obtained in some one of the modes above provided, then said notice shall be given by publication in some newspaper published in the county where the land is situate, and if no newspaper is published in said county then the said notice shall be published in some newspaper nearest said county.

(Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 340, §5, as added Mar. 2, 1897, ch. 363, 29 Stat. 619.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 75 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD ALLEN PINEIRO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-97-39, CA-00-341-7) Submitted: May 9, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Allen Pineiro, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Edward Allen Pineiro seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his “Motion to include New ruling addressing breach of plea agreement by non-fulfillment of promise.” Our review of this case reveals that this claim previously was raised by Pineiro and rejected by this court in review of Pineiro’s appeal of the denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), in United States v. Pineiro , No. 01-6981 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2001) (unpublished). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 56.7009 Drill helpers.

If a drill helper assists the drill operator during movement of a drill to a new location, the helper shall be in sight of, or in communication with, the operator at all times.
\

{


### SERVED: May 5, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF

THOMAS BRAY FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0621
ORDERDENYING AGENCY MOTION FOR DECISION .,

. .•**~** i**-·f',':~:i)(~**

.**,·.~-; (Ji:~(,**  ;j,
__ \·
..**_.:~.'**

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") has filed a Motion for Decision. Thomas Bray (hereinafter "Respondent") has filed a number of communications. WHEREFORE, Complainant's Motion for Decision having been read and considered it be and is hereby DENIED.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1 ONE COPY Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, AWP-7 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110 FAX: 310-725-6816 Thomas H. Bray, Respondent 30382 U.S. Highway 60-89, #11 Wickenburg, AZ 85390 TEL: 901-226-0142 E-MAIL: multigrainscpt@msn.com The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0621 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

HouseValues, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 333-121294) on Form S-8 of HouseValues, Inc. of our reports dated March 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of HouseValues, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, redeemable convertible preferred stock and shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, the related financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reportsappear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of HouseValues, Inc. Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for all stock-based awards made to employees and directors effective January 1, 2006. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Seattle, WA 

March 2, 2007
|   | *Exhibit 21.1* |
|--------|----------------|

 

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 

| Entity                                       | Jurisdiction of Organization | Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business                                                 |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Alaska United Fiber System Partnership       | Alaska                       | Alaska United Fiber System Partnership, Alaska United Fiber System, Alaska United

  |
| GCI Communication Corp.                      | Alaska                       | GCI, GCC, GCICC, GCI Communication Corp.

                                           |
| GCI, Inc.                                    | Alaska                       | GCI, GCI, Inc.

                                                                     |
| GCI Cable, Inc.                              | Alaska                       | GCI Cable, GCI Cable, Inc.

                                                         |
| GCI Holdings, Inc.                           | Alaska                       | GCI Holdings, Inc.

                                                                 |
| Potter View Development Co., Inc.            | Alaska                       | Potter View Development Co., Inc.

                                                  |
| GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc.

* * | Alaska                       | GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc., GFCC,  Kanas

                                   |
### §547. Conditions of sale

(a) If a renewal of a franchise held by a cable operator is denied and the franchising authority acquires ownership of the cable system or effects a transfer of ownership of the system to another person, any such acquisition or transfer shall be—

(1) at fair market value, determined on the basis of the cable system valued as a going concern but with no value allocated to the franchise itself, or

(2) in the case of any franchise existing on the effective date of this subchapter, at a price determined in accordance with the franchise if such franchise contains provisions applicable to such an acquisition or transfer.

(b) If a franchise held by a cable operator is revoked for cause and the franchising authority acquires ownership of the cable system or effects a transfer of ownership of the system to another person, any such acquisition or transfer shall be—

(1) at an equitable price, or

(2) in the case of any franchise existing on the effective date of this subchapter, at a price determined in accordance with the franchise if such franchise contains provisions applicable to such an acquisition or transfer.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, §627, as added Pub. L. 98–549, §2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2793.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For "the effective date of this subchapter", referred to in subsecs. (a)(2) and (b)(2), as 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as an Effective Date note under section 521 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.
§ 551.2 Purpose of this part. ( a ) To allow you to conduct G&G activities in the OCS related to oil, gas, and sulphur on unleased lands or on lands under lease to a third party.
( b ) To ensure that you carry out G&G activities in a safe and environmentally sound manner so as to prevent harm or damage to, or waste of, any natural resources (including any mineral deposit in areas leased or not leased), any life (including fish and other aquatic life), property, or the marine, coastal, or human environment.
( c ) To inform you and third parties of your legal and contractual obligations.
( d ) To inform you and third parties of the U.S. Government's rights to access G&G data and information collected under permit in the OCS, reimbursement for submittal of data and information, and the proprietary terms of data and information submitted to, and retained by, BOEM.
|     |                                                                                                                            |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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 result of operations of the Company. |

|             |
|-------------|
|             |  |  |
| Date:  | August 3, 2016 | /s/ Peter J. Pounds |
|        |   | Peter J. Pounds |
|        |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|        |   | General Communication, Inc. |
Line 1ALine 2BLine 1BLine 2AFans Lines 1-2Fans Line 3-4Line 3BLine 3ALine 4ALine 4BMulticlones 1-2Multiclones 3-4ESPsLines 1-2ESPsLines 3-4Wet ScrubbersSlurry PumpsSlurrySump
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 209 V

Filed: February 9, 2015

Not for P ublication

*************************************

STEPHEN WALLEN, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

F. John Caldwell , Jr.

, Sarasota, FL

, for petitioner.

Julia W. McInerny , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On February 9, 2015 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with General Order #9 , petitioner assert s that he did not incur any costs in

pursuit of his petition. Petitioner submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and costs to

respondent. During informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certain aspects of

petitioner’ s application

. Based on these objections, petitioner amend s his appli cation for

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special master s will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of priva cy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

attor ne ys’ fees and costs to $ 21

, 9 5 0.00

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 21

, 9 5 0.00

, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a

chec k payable jointly to petitioner and M aglio, Christopher, & Toale , P. A . for $ 21

, 9 5 0.00

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bernard Kuzewicz, Jr., Appellant.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
#### § 57.10002 Inspection and maintenance.

Inspection and maintenance of carriers (including loading and unloading mechanisms), ropes and supports, and brakes shall be performed by competent persons according to the recommendations of the manufacturer.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7148

PAUL MCDONALD,
Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-03503-PJM)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Paul McDonald appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. McDonald v. Warden , No. 8:08-cv-03503-PJM (D. Md.
April 2, 2009). 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
§ 1208.8 Transportation and delivery. ( a ) The lessee shall deliver royalty oil from onshore leases to the purchaser at a point on or adjacent to the lease pursuant to the terms of the lease. If the purchaser does not have access to its onshore royalty oil entitlement at facilities on or adjacent to the lease, the operator of the lease must designate an alternate delivery point at no additional cost to the purchaser or the Government. The purchaser must have physical access to the oil at the alternate delivery point and such point must be approved by ONRR.
( b ) The lessee shall deliver royalty oil from section 8 offshore leases issued after September 1969 at a delivery point to be designated by ONRR. The lessee shall deliver royalty oil from section 8 offshore leases issued before October 1969 or from section 6 leases at a delivery point to be designated by the lessee. If the delivery point is on or immediately adjacent to the lease, the royalty oil will be delivered without cost to the Federal Government as an undivided portion of production in marketable condition at pipeline connections or other facilities provided by the lessee, unless other arrangements are approved by ONRR. If the delivery point is not on or immediately adjacent to the lease, ONRR will reimburse the lessee for the reasonable cost of transportation to such point in an amount not to exceed the transportation allowance determined pursuant to 30 CFR part 1206. The ONRR will include such transportation costs in the price charged for the oil taken in kind to reflect the value of the oil at the delivery point. Arrangements for delivery of the royalty oil from, or exchange of the oil at, the delivery point, and related transportation costs, are the responsibility of the purchaser of the royalty oil. In addition, quality differentials between the royalty oil to which a purchaser is entitled and the oil which is made available at the delivery point are matters to be resolved between the purchaser and the operator.
( c ) When the purchaser has physical access to the royalty oil at the delivery point, the lessee shall deliver such oil in marketable condition at pipeline connections or other facilities designated by ONRR. If the lessee is unable to provide the royalty portion of actual production from the lease, the lessee must provide crude oil to the purchaser which is equivalent in volume or value to the royalty oil to which the purchaser is entitled. The lessee will deliver the royalty oil to the purchaser during normal operating hours and in reasonable quantities and intervals. The lessee will make available and the purchaser will accept delivery of the royalty oil entitlement no later than the last day of the calendar month immediately following the calendar month in which the oil was produced. Failure to accept deliveries shall constitute grounds for the termination of the contract.
( d ) Upon termination of deliveries under a royalty oil contract, the transportation allowance and delivery point designation authorized by this section no longer will remain in effect.
J. A21031/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF ITS 

INSURED, MONIL PATEL

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

MODERN AUTO CRAFTERS, : No. 3489 EDA 2019

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 22, 2019,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Civil Division at No. 180302579

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 28, 2020

We find that this appeal concerning Section 9-605 of the Philadelphia 

Towing Ordinance properly falls within the purview of the Commonwealth 

Court’s jurisdiction. See Hammer v. Nikol, 659 A.2d 617, 619 n.4 

(Pa.Commw.Ct. 1995) (noting that appeal originally filed in this court was 

properly transferred to the Commonwealth Court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 751 

and 752, because one of the issues involved a violation of the Philadelphia 

Towing Ordinance); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(2). 

Accordingly, we transfer this case to the Commonwealth Court. 

Appellant’s application for oral argument is dismissed as moot.
J. A21031/20

- 2 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/28/20
#### § 36.7 [Reserved]
§ 1218.201 Method of payment. You must tender all payments in accordance with § 1218.51, except as follows: ( a ) For purposes of this section, *report* means the Solid Minerals Production and Royalty Report, Form ONRR-4430, rather than the Form ONRR-2014.
( b ) For Form ONRR-4430 payments, include both your customer identification and your customer document identification numbers on your payment document, rather than the information required under § 1218.51(f)(1).
( c ) For a rental payment that is not reported on Form ONRR-4430, include the ONRR Courtesy Notice when provided or write your customer identification number and Government-assigned lease number on the payment document, rather than the information required under § 1218.51(f)(4)(iii).
[66 FR 45773, Aug. 30, 2001]
§ 550.254 What mitigation measures information must accompany the DPP or DOCD? ( a ) If you propose to use any measures beyond those required by the regulations in this part to minimize or mitigate environmental impacts from your proposed development and production activities, a description of the measures you will use must accompany your DPP or DOCD.
( b ) If there is reason to believe that protected species may be incidentally taken by planned development and production activities, you must include mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize that incidental take of: ( 1 ) Threatened and endangered species listed under the ESA; and
( 2 ) Marine mammals, as appropriate, if you have not already received authorization for incidental take as may be necessary under the MMPA.