alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 29, 2015

Mr. Joshua Primmer 544 Maquan Street Hanson, MA 02341

Dear Mr. Primmer.:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 28, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1263), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent 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.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

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

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us 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 hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 7865.

#### Goodwin et al. *v.*White.

(Decided September 22, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Clark county.

*Mr. Frank W. Geiger*and *Messrs. Hagan & Kunkle,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. J ohn G. Bassett,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
§ 990.240 General. ( a ) PHAs will be provided opportunities for appeals. HUD will provide up to a two percent hold-back of the Operating Fund appropriation for FY 2006 and FY 2007. HUD will use the hold-back amount to fund appeals that are filed during each of these fiscal years. Hold-back funds not utilized will be added back to the formula within each of the affected fiscal years.
( b ) Appeals are voluntary and must cover an entire portfolio, not single projects. However, the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (or designee) has the discretion to accept appeals of less than an entire portfolio for PHAs with greater than 5,000 public housing units.
TÌM HIEU VÀ CHUAN BI

HO SO NHÂP TICH HOA KY

Xin hãy bắt đầu ngay hôm nay qua trang 

mạng www.uscis.gov/citizenship 

ÐONG BÀO DI CU ÐEN TU KHAP NOI TRÊN THE GIOI

KHI NHÂP TICH LUÔN HÃNH 

DIEN LÀ CÔNG DÂN HOA KY

Nếu quí vị quan tâm về việc nhập tịch 

Hoa Kỳ, xin quí vị vào trang mạng của 

Sở Di Trú để biết thêm chi tiết. Nội 

dung trang mạng này gồm có: 

 •Những điều kiện căn bản để xin 

 nhập tịch

 • Đơn xin Nhập Tịch N-400

 • Lệ phí hiện hành và thời gian cứu 

 xét hồ sơ

 • Các tài liệu học hỏi về Anh Văn 

 và lịch sử Hoa Kỳ

 •Các phương thức hướng dẫn 

 học hỏi

 • Băng thâu Video và những phương 

 tiện nghe và học

 • Các tin tức cập nhật và các chương 

 trình đặc biệt của Sở Di Trú Hoa Kỳ

 • Cung cấp địa chỉ các lớp học quốc 

 tịch gần nhà quí vị

 •Giúp quí vị tìm được những sự giúp 

 đỡ ngay trong cộng đồng nơi quí vị 

 cư ngụ
Xin hãy bắt đầu ngay hôm nay qua trang mạng www.uscis.gov/citizenship 

CHUAN BI NHAP TICH CHO CÁC DI DAN 

TÀI LIEU CHO LOP HOC QUOC TICH

M-798-V (04/12)

Nếu hội đoàn của quí vị đang cần các tài liệu và sách vở để tổ chức 

các lớp học quốc tịch, xin quí vị hãy vào trang mạng của Sở Di Trú Hoa 

Kỳ để được giúp đỡ. Nội dung trang mạng này bao gồm:

• Tài liệu chuẩn bị lớp, bài học, và các sinh hoạt lớp

• Các ấn bản và sách vở về quốc tịch

• Các hướng dẫn trên mạng và phương thức giảng dạy trong lớp

• Có các chương trình Podcasts và video

•Cập nhật các tin tức quan trọng về các lớp huấn luyện giảng dạy

• Những phương pháp giảng dạy thành công từ các nhà cung cấp 

kinh nghiệm

• Cập nhật các tin tức về các cơ hội hỗ trợ tài chánh của Liên Bang

Quí vị cũng có thể đăng ký các lớp học Anh Văn và quốc tịch của hội 

đoàn mình vào Thư Mục Hướng Dẫn Văn Hóa Mỹ trên mạng, hầu giúp 

mọi người tìm được các lớp học này trên khắp 50 tiểu bang và các 

thuộc địa của Hoa Kỳ.
/o/(/*)FfR~3L-l 

Si' 

= 73 

Monitored Retrievable Storage 

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), DOE is 

directed to submit a proposal for one or more monitored 

retrievable storage (MRS) facilities for storage of commercial spent fuel and high-level wastes. MRS is considered 

as a backup to repository development and would be 

licensed by the NRC if DOE is authorized by Congress to 

proceed with an MRS facility. For the proposal, due to 

Congress by June 1, 1985, DOE has chosen as the preferred design a sealed concrete storage cask concept with 

a dry well concept as the alternate. Both designs would 

employ a large hot cell complex for receipt, handling, and 

packaging operations. DOE has consulted with NRC 

who, as specified by the Act, must prepare comments on 

the proposal for submittal with the DOE package to 

Congress. 

In preparation for licensing activities—should Congress authorize DOE to proceed with MRS—the staff is 

preparing minor modifications to its regulation, 10 CFR 

Part 72, for Commission consideration and publication for 

comment. These changes would make the rule applicable 

to both interim storage of spent fuel outside reactor pools 

and to monitored retrievable storage of spent fuel and 

high-level waste. 

MATERIALS LICENSING 

The NRC currently administers approximately 8900 

licenses for the possession and use of nuclear materials in 

applications other than the generation of electricity, or 

operation of a research reactor. Of these, about 300 are 

academic, 2800 are medical, and 5800 are industrial licenses. The NRC's licensing program is designed to ensure that activities involving such uses of radionuclides do 

not endanger the public health and safety. The agency 

took more than 5800 licensing actions during fiscal year 

1984. Of these, 800 were on applications for new licenses, 

3600 concerned amendments, 1200 were license renewals, and 200 were sealed source reviews. In addition 

to these NRC licenses, the 27 Agreement States administer approximately 13,000 licenses. Tliese Agreement 

States have authority over such materials under regulatory agreements with the NRC (see Chapter 9). 

Regionalization of these licensing functions continued 

in 1984 (see 1982 NRC Annual Report, p. 66 and 1983 

NRC Annual Report, p. 58). Additional categories of licensing functions were delegated to the Regions on April 

2, 1984. Prior to the transfer, license reviewers in the 

MATERIALS LICENSES ADMINISTERED BY NRC* 

(THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1984) 

Types of Licenses 

Academic 

Medical 

Industrial 

Licensing Actions Taken in FY 1984 

New Licenses 

License Amendments 

License Renewals 

Sealed Source Reviews 

300 

2800 

5800 

8900** 

800 

3600 

1200 

200 

5800** 

* In addition to the NRC licenses, some 13,000 licenses were administered by 27 states which have 

authority over certain materials under regulatory agreements with the NRC. 

"Totals are approximate due to almost daily fluctuation in numbers.
Summary of EPA Meeting with Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold (FCX)

December 5, 2013

On December 5, 2013, representatives from EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(ORCR) met with representatives of Freeport-McMoRan regarding their comments on the Definition of 

Solid Waste rulemaking. Freeport-McMoRan provided a presentation entitled “Impacts of EPA’s ‘Solid 

Waste’ Rule on Primary Mineral Processing & Recycling.” 

Attendees:

Barnes Johnson, EPA/ORCR

Tracy Atagi, EPA/ORCR

Ross Elliott, EPA/ORCR

Michael Wood, FCX

Elliott Laws, C&M

Bill Cobb, FCX

David Kimball, FCX
### Docket No. FAA**- 2011**  **- 1095**  **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Helen Tsai

613 - 952 - 4362 8/25/2010 No Objections

Bom bardier Aerospace Jenny Young

5 14 - 855 - 5 001 x586 10 8/25/2010 No Objections

National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) Elias Cotti

202 - 783 - 9000 9/22/2010 No Objections
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ALLEN EUGENE LAYTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-04-65) Submitted: April 8, 2005 Decided: May 20, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Willard Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Robert James Wagner, Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Ne wport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Allen Eugene Layton pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), possession of a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On October 26, 2004, the district court sentenced Layton to concurrent eighty-four month prison terms on counts one and three and a consecutive sixty-month prison term on count two, followed by five years of supervised release. However, in light of Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud , 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), opinion issued by381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. granted and judgment vacated , 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005), the district court announced an alternative prison sentence for counts one and three of seventy-two months. After Layton filed his notice of appeal, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Layton has now filed an unopposed motion to remand his case to the district court for resentencing in light of Booker . We grant the motion for remand to allow the district court to reconsi der Layton’s sentence in light of the Booker decision. Layton indicates the sole issue he wishes to pursue on appeal is the propriety of his sentence imposed under the mandatory- 3 - sentencing guidelines scheme in effect at the time he was sentenced. Therefore, we affirm his convictions, vacate the sentence imposed by the district court, and remand for reconsideration of the sentence. 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9514 

To make certain modifications to the repayment for the Arkansas Valley 

Conduit in the State of Colorado. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Ms. BOEBERT (for herself and Mr. LOPEZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To make certain modifications to the repayment for the 

Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Finish the Arkansas 

5 Valley Conduit Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT, COLORADO. 

7 Public Law 87–590 (76 Stat. 389) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (c) of the first section (76 

9 Stat. 390; 123 Stat. 1320), in the second sentence— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9514 IH

1 (A) by inserting ‘‘, without interest,’’ be2 fore ‘‘in an amount’’; 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘that is comprised of rev4 enue generated by payments’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

5 which payment shall only consist of funding 

6 provided during construction from any person 

7 other than the Secretary’’; 

8 (C) by inserting ‘‘of’’ before ‘‘revenue 

9 that’’; and 

10 (D) by inserting ‘‘over a period of 100 

11 years’’ after ‘‘project facilities’’; and 

12 (2) in section 2(b)(3)(A) (76 Stat. 390; 123 

13 Stat. 1321)— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘plus interest’’; and 

15 (B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘subsection (c) of the first section’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Eric C. Grossman, as Administrator of the Estate of Katherine McElheny, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 36238.)

Same decision and like cause of action as in companion ease of *Grossman*v. *State of New York*(16 A D 2d 1030).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00610-CR

Patrick Heaney, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-14-205206, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Patrick Heaney seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for

possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(b). The trial court

has certified that: (1) this is a plea-bargain case and appellant has no right of appeal, and

(2) appellant waived the right of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2), (d).

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 20, 2016

Do Not Publish
### [§§301 to 308. Renumbered §§46101 to 46108]
February 29,2016

Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue S.W. Wilburn Wright Bldg.- Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk AGC-430 Re: FAA File No. 2012S0700099 Notice ofAppearance Dear Clerk: 

# ~Frost-n 

# tlf6wn

**1odd~~~** ATTORNEYS Winston E Miller Member 502.568.0296 (t) 502.581.1087 (f) wmiller@fbtlaw.com

VIAUPS Overnight and Regular U.S. Mail



## \~- 

## ()P\S. \

# lo

- q,:l

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.204, the undersigned hereby gives notice of appearance regarding the above-matter on behalfofUnited Parcel Service, Inc. (an Ohio Corporation, "UPS Ground") and United Parcel Service Co. (a Delaware Corporation, "UPS Airlines"). All communications regarding this matter should be directedto: Winston E. Miller FrostBrownToddLLC 400 West Market Street, 32nd Fl. Louisville, KY 40202 502-568-0296 502-581-1087 (Fax) wmiller@fbtlaw.com Please let me know ifany additional informationis needed. Sincerely,

Winston E. Miller Counsel for United Parcel Service, Inc. and United Parcel Service Co.

400 West Market Street I 32nd Floor I Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3363 I 502.589.5400 Ifrostbrowntodd.com Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West VirginiaFederal AviationAdministration Page 2 February 29, 2016

cc: AndreaMichelle Harper Senior Attorney Enforcement Division, Southern Team P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice ofAppearance has been sent via UPS overnight delivery, this 29'h day ofFebruary 2016. Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur WrightBldg.- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk (AGC-430) and a copy by certified mail- return receipt requested and regular U.S. mail to: Andrea Michelle Harper Senior Attorney EnforcementDivision, Southern Team P. 0. Box20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 (U.S. Mail) AndreaMichelle Harper Senior Attorney Enforcement Division, Southern Team 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 (Certified Mail)

OOOOOXA0624664 4843-2704-5154vi Counsel for United Parcel Service, Inc. andUnitedParcel Service Co.

400 West Market Street 1 32nd Floor I Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3363 I 502.589.5400 Ifrostbrowntodd.com Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1753 After I decommission a pipeline, what information must I submit? Within 30 days after you decommission a pipeline, you must submit a written report to the Regional Supervisor that includes the following: ( a ) A summary of the decommissioning operation including the date it was completed;
( b ) A description of any mitigation measures you took; and
( c ) A statement signed by your authorized representative that certifies that the pipeline was decommissioned according to the approved application.
PUBLIC LAW 114–277—DEC. 15, 2016 130 STAT. 1409 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6297: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Nov. 15, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–277 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Iran Sanctions Extension Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF IRAN SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996. 

Section 13(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 

104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking ‘‘December 

31, 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2026’’. 

[Note by the Office of the Federal Register: The foregoing Act, having been presented to the President of the United States on Friday, December 2, 2016, and not 

having been returned by him to the House of Congress in which it originated within 

the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, has become law without his signature on December 15, 2016.] 

50 USC 1701 

note. 

Iran Sanctions 

Extension Act. 

Dec. 15, 2016 

[H.R. 6297] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
Rupprecht Law P. A. 

324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

July 15, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Additional Information for Drone Service Systems, Inc. (Docket FAA-2015-1950) Regarding Why 

Granting the Petition Will Benefit the Public. 

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Petitioner intends to produce picture and video content. If the petitioner does not have the 

option of using the Petitioner’s UA, the only other way to obtain the aerial footage is by using manned 

aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals on the ground. There are no pilots on 

board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the public on the ground in 

case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors while most manned aircraft have only 

one engine.

Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet 

enjoyment of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the 

public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution.

In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or turbine powered aircraft produce exhaust 

which affects the environment while the UA of the petitioner are electric and do not produce any 

emission. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.
2

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there 

was an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less chance of individuals being injured from an 

explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned helicopters which will cause far less 

damage in the case of a crash than the “grenading” that typically happens during a manned helicopter 

crash.

Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than manned aircraft. Thus, the public benefits 

because the danger of a mid-air collision is lessened

If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me

at (561)222-6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
#### § 57.12034 Guarding around lights.

Portable extension lights, and other lights that by their location present a shock or burn hazard, shall be guarded.
#### § 56.4103 Fueling internal combustion engines.

Internal combustion engines shall be switched off before refueling if the fuel tanks are integral parts of the equipment. This standard does not apply to diesel-powered equipment.
§ 23.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Adequate* means appropriate and sufficient, as determined by mutual agreement of the manufacturer, operators, and MSHA.
( b ) *Approval* means official notification by letter, from MSHA to a responsible organization, stating that the device under consideration has been judged to meet the requirements of this part.
( c ) *Normal operation* means the performance by each part of the device of those functions for which the part was designed.
( d ) *Permissible* as used in this part means completely assembled and conforming in every respect with the design formally approved by MSHA under this part. (Approvals under this part are given only to equipment for use in gassy and dusty mines.)
( e ) *Protected* means effectively covered, enclosed, or otherwise guarded by adequate covers.
( f ) *Signaling device.* As used in this part, a signaling device is one that gives visual or audible signals.
( g ) *MESA* means the United States Department of the Interior, Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration. Predecessor organization to MSHA, prior to March 9, 1978.
( h ) *MSHA* means the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Note:
Paragraph (f) of this section is issued under the authority of Sec. 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Pub. L. 91-173 as amended by Pub. L. 95-164, 91 Stat. 1291 (30 U.S.C. 811). All other paragraphs in this section continue under the original authority.
[Sched. 9B, 4 FR 1555, Apr. 11, 1939, as amended by Supp. 1, 20 FR 2975, May 4, 1955; 39 FR 24001, June 28, 1974; 43 FR 12315, Mar. 24, 1978; 47 FR 11370, Mar. 16, 1982]
Searched for **https://www.federalreserveconsumerhelp.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.federalreserveconsumerhelp.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.