alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1243.8 When will ONRR suspend my obligation to comply with an order? ( a ) *Federal leases.* Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, if you appeal an order regarding the payment and reporting of royalties and other payments due from Federal mineral leases onshore or on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and: ( 1 ) If the amount under appeal is less than $10,000 or does not require payment of a specified amount, ONRR will suspend your obligation to comply with the order. ONRR will use the lease surety posted with the Bureau of Land Management for onshore leases, and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for OCS leases, as collateral for the obligation; or
( 2 ) If the amount under appeal is $10,000 or more, ONRR will suspend your obligation to comply with that order if you: ( i ) Submit an ONRR-specified surety instrument under subpart B of this part within a time period ONRR prescribes; or
( ii ) Demonstrate financial solvency under subpart C.
( b ) *Indian leases.* Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, if you appeal an order regarding the payment and reporting of royalties and other payments due from Indian mineral leases subject to this part, and: ( 1 ) If the amount under appeal is less than $1,000 or does not require payment, ONRR will suspend your obligation to comply with the order. ONRR will use the lease surety posted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs as collateral for the obligation; or
( 2 ) If the amount under appeal is $1,000 or more, ONRR will suspend your obligation to comply with that order if you submit an ONRR-specified surety instrument under subpart B of this part within a time period ONRR prescribes.
( c ) Nothing in this part prohibits you from paying any demanded amount or complying with any other requirement pending appeal. However, voluntarily paying any demanded amount or otherwise complying with any other requirement when suspension of an order is otherwise available under these rules does not create judicially reviewable final agency action under 5 U.S.C. 704.
( d ) Regardless of the amount under appeal, ONRR may inform you that it will not suspend your obligation to comply with the order under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section because suspension would harm the interests of the United States or the Indian lessor.
**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 operation of the                Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                            |                                                                                               |                              |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Date:                May                1, 2007 | By:                                                                                      | */s/              David A. Dodge* |
|                                            | Name: David                A. Dodge                                                           |
|                                            | Title: Chief                Financial Officer and principal accounting                officer |

----
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 14 - 00129 - CV

________________________ SUSAN MCDONALD , APPELLANT

V. SAMUEL A. HENDRICKS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 52 nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Tri a l Court No. 41621 ; Honorable Trent D. Farrell , Presiding

June 23 , 201 4 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J. and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Pending before this Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Appellant, Susan McDonald . By this motion Appellant represents she a nd Appellee, Samuel A. Hendricks, have compromised and settled their differences which are the basis of this appeal. Without passing on the merits of the appeal, McDonald’s motion is granted and the appeal is dis missed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1) . P ursuant to the motion, all costs on appeal should be taxed against the party incurring them. Id . at 42.1(d).2

Having dismissed this appeal at McDonald’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
#### § 904.122 Statutory preferences.

In selecting applicants for assistance under this part, the LHA must give preference, in accordance with the authorized preference requirements described in 24 CFR 5.410 through 5.430. Notwithstanding those preferences, the LHA can limit homeownership admission to eligible homeownership candidates.

[59 FR 36651, July 18, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 9048, Mar. 6, 1996]
Support Block 

Basic Issue: Sep 26/2013 A604-57-006

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX 2 

The following data is required to manufacture the Support Block tool if necessary, 

for bushing removals.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,894
<SECURITIES>                                     3,995
<RECEIVABLES>                                      712
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (41)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,622
<PP&E>                                           5,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,685)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,824
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,310
<OTHER-SE>                                    (53,770)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,911
<SALES>                                          1,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,631
<CGS>                                            1,253
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (271)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,811)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 79498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4559-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4559-DR), dated August 28, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 29, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter 
dated October 29, 2020, the President amended the cost-sharing 
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Pete Gaynor, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of 
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State 
of Louisiana resulting from Hurricane Laura during the period of 
August 22 to August 27, 2020, is of sufficient severity and 
magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted 
regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. 
(the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of August 28, 2020, to 
authorize a 100 percent Federal cost share for debris removal and 
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct 
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for a 
continuous period of 30 days established by the State of Louisiana.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-27173 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,635,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,099,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   370,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,168,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,186,000
<PP&E>                                      19,690,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,590,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,362,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,608,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,730,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,362,000
<SALES>                                      7,936,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,936,000
<CGS>                                        3,403,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,403,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,327,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                258,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   258,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
#### In re BUTT. In the matter of the probate of the last will and testament of George Butt, deceased.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 24, 1903.)

No opinion. Decree of Surrogate’s Court affirmed, with costs.
§ 550.144 How do I designate a new operator when a designation of operator terminates? ( a ) When a Designation of Operator terminates, the Regional Supervisor must approve a new designated operator before you may continue operations. Each lessee must submit a new executed Designation of Operator form.
( b ) If your Designation of Operator is terminated, or a controversy develops between you and your designated operator, you and your designated operator must protect the lessor's interests.
y

MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00896-CR

VICTOR CHARLES BANKETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County. 

(Tr. Ct. No. 1866497).

TO THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF HARRIS COUNTY, 

GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 11th day of June 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on September 20, 2013. After inspecting the 

record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that the appellant is 

entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s 

judgment and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered June 11, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd. 
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

August 21, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JACOB KNIZE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 362 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of April, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 56.4203 Extinguisher recharging or replacement.

Fire extinguishers shall be recharged or replaced with a fully charged extinguisher promptly after any discharge.
C. A. No. 76-21.

#### State *v.*Robert G. Cole.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Judith Romney Wegner,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.

*Hodosh, Spinella, Hodosh & Angelone, Gerard McGovern DeCelles,*for defendant.

The defendant’s motion that he be injected with so-called truth serum is denied.
§ 56.13015 Inspection of compressed-air receivers and other unfired pressure vessels. ( a ) Compressed-air receivers and other unfired pressure vessels shall be inspected by inspectors holding a valid National Board Commission and in accordance with the applicable chapters of the National Board Inspection Code, a Manual for Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, 1979. This code is incorporated by reference and made a part of this standard. It may be examined at any Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health District Office of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and may be obtained from the publisher, the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspector, 1055 Crupper Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43229.
( b ) Records of inspections shall be kept in accordance with requirements of the National Board Inspection Code, and the records shall be made available to the Secretary or his authorized representative.
(No. 90-CC-0741

#### Glenn Smith, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 21, 1994.*

Glenn Smith, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Verne E. Denting, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

OPINION

Sommer, C.J.

The Claimant, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, seeks judgment against the Respondent, State of Illinois, in the sum of $40.60 for the value of a Panasonic radio which the Claimant contends was lost or converted through the fault or neglect of the State of Illinois. The Claimants complaint alleges that on January 26, 1989, he was possessed of the radio. On that date, he was transferred from the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet to the Illinois State Penitentiary at Pontiac. Thereafter, the Claimant alleges that the Respondents agent advised him that his property had been stolen from the personal property room, and could not be returned to him.

At the hearing, the Claimant testified that he had *308purchased the radio for $40.65 at Stateville Correctional Center, and that it could be expected to last four or five years. The radio was successfully transferred because the Claimant testified that he saw the radio after arriving at Joliet. The radio was taken from his possession at Joliet due to disciplinary problems. As a result of the Claimants grievance, he was reimbursed the sum of $27.20 by the Respondent in spite of the fact that the Claimant had paid $40.65 for the radio. Upon hearing, the Claimant moved that his claim should be reduced to the sum of $13.40 due to the States reimbursement of the Claimant in the amount of $27.20.

Upon cross-examination it was determined that at the time of the loss, the radio was approximately 12 months old, having been purchased in June of 1988. The Claimant testified that the estimated useful life of the radio was three to four years or possibly longer. The Claimant testified that in the five years preceding the hearing he had purchased three or four radios. The Claimant admitted that the State had apparently computed the amount of his damages by depreciating the value of the radio approximately 33 1/3%.

It appears, from the evidence at the hearing, that the Claimant has been compensated for the loss sustained by him through the voluntary action of the Respondent. The useful life of the radio is admitted to be three to five years. The Respondent paid the Claimant two-thirds of the purchase price of the radio.

This Court has previously ruled that some reasonable depreciation may be taken into account when considering the value of lost property of inmates. *(Hamilton v. State*(1993), 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 324.) This depreciation depends upon the circumstances of the claim and should not be confiscatory. *(Seats v. State*(1993), 46 Ill. Ct. Cl. *309418.) We find in this claim that the depreciation assigned by the department was reasonable and not confiscatory.

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that this claim be denied.
#### Marian E. McLaughlin, Individually and as Executrix of D. Humes McLaughlin, Deceased, and as a Stockholder of 254 Holding Corporation and Macla Corporation, Respondent, v. 254 Holding Corporation et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on April 12, 1960, denying in all respects defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds and to strike out certain matter as allegedly sham, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
### §644a. Jurisdiction of district court of cases arising on or within Midway, Wake, Johnston, Sand, etc., Islands; laws applicable to jury trials

The jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii is extended to all civil and criminal cases arising on or within the Midway Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Island, Sand Island, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Island, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, and, having regard to the special status of Canton and Enderbury Islands pursuant to an agreement of April 6, 1939, between the Governments of the United States and of the United Kingdom to set up a regime for their use in common, the said jurisdiction is also extended to all civil and criminal cases arising on or within Canton Island and Enderbury Island: Provided, That such extension to Canton and Enderbury Islands shall in no way be construed to be prejudicial to the claims of the United Kingdom to said islands in accordance with the agreement. All civil acts and deeds consummated and taking place on any of these islands or in the waters adjacent thereto, and all offenses and crimes committed thereon, or on or in the waters adjacent thereto, shall be deemed to have been consummated or committed on the high seas on board a merchant vessel or other vessel belonging to the United States and shall be adjudicated and determined or adjudged and punished according to the laws of the United States relating to such civil acts or offenses on such ships or vessels on the high seas, which laws for the purpose aforesaid are extended over such islands, rocks, and keys.

The laws of the United States relating to juries and jury trials shall be applicable to the trial of such cases before said district court.

(June 15, 1950, ch. 253, 64 Stat. 217; Pub. L. 86–3, §14(j), Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 11; Pub. L. 86–624, §19, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 416.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1960—Pub. L. 86–624 struck out Kure Island.

1959—Pub. L. 86–3 extended jurisdiction to cases arising on or within Palmyra Island.

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

#### Effective Date of 1959 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 86–3 effective on admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, see note set out under section 91 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Admission of Hawaii into the Union was accomplished Aug. 21, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 25 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat. c74, as required by sections 1 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out as notes preceding section 491 of this title.

#### Canton and Enderbury Islands; Sovereignty of Kiribati

By a treaty of friendship, TIAS 10777, which entered into force Sept. 23, 1983, the United States recognized the sovereignty of Kiribati over Canton Island and Enderbury Island.
Slip Op. 04-29

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, SENIOR JUDGE

ILVA LAMIERE E TUBI S.R.L. 

and ILVA S.P.A.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION and

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION,

Defendant-Intervenors.

 Court No. 00-00127

JUDGMENT ORDER

Upon consideration of the Department of Commerce’s Final

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand

(“Redetermination Results”) filed pursuant to the Court’s

decision in ILVA Lamiere e Tubi S.r.l. and ILVA S.p.A. v. United

States, Slip Op. 03-97 (July 29, 2003), and all other papers

filed herein, and no parties having filed comments regarding the

Redetermination Results, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Redetermination Results are sustained in

all respects.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard W. Goldberg

_____________________________

Richard W. Goldberg

Senior Judge

Dated: March 26, 2004

New York, New York
#### § 57.11017 Inclined fixed ladders.

Fixed ladders shall not incline backwards.