alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 81180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-54-2020]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 136--Brevard County, Florida; 
Authorization of Production Activity; Airbus OneWeb Satellites North 
America LLC (Satellites and Satellite Systems); Merritt Island, Florida

    On August 12, 2020, Airbus OneWeb Satellites North America LLC 
submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ 
Board for its facility within FTZ 136, in Merritt Island, Florida.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (85 FR 51010-51011, August 19, 2020). 
On December 10, 2020, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: December 10, 2020.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27550 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### § 905.795 Small operator assistance program.

Part 795 of this chapter, *Small Operator Assistance Program,* shall apply to any person making application for assistance under the small operator assistance program.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11-20

                               DTE ENERGY COMPANY
                      BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 OF COMMON STOCK

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three Months              Nine Months
                                                                          Ended                    Ended
                                                                   September 30, 2000        September 30, 2000
                                                                   ------------------        ------------------
                                                                      (Thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                                    <C>                        <C>
BASIC:
     Net income....................................................... $    103,784               $329,050
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding (a).........................................      142,655                143,272
     Earnings per share of common stock
       based on weighted average number
       of shares outstanding.......................................... $       0.73               $   2.30

DILUTED:
     Net income....................................................... $    103,784               $329,050

     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding (a).........................................      142,655                143,272
     Incremental shares from assumed exercise
       of options.....................................................          181                     88
                                                                       ------------               --------
                                                                            142,836                143,360
                                                                       ============               ========

     Earnings per share of common stock
       assuming exercise of options................................... $       0.73               $   2.30
</TABLE>

--------------------------
(a)  Based on a daily average.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1202 Temporary notations, revisions, and supplements.

[Statutory Provisions]

Such map shall be kept up-to-date by temporary notations and such map shall be revised and supplemented at intervals prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of a survey made or certified by such engineer or surveyor.
#### § 717.16 [Reserved]
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                          STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          A. Years Ended December 31,
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1999                1998                1997
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                             <C>                <C>                <C>
Average shares outstanding                                      62,262,000           46,736,000         42,181,000
Average common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding                                            62,262,000           46,736,000         42,181,000
Net loss                                                       $(4,569,000)         $  (996,000)       $(2,294,000)
Abolishment of accrued preferred dividends                              --          $ 6,508,000                 --
Preferred stock dividend                                                            $  (647,000)       $(1,551,000)
Computation of Earnings Per Share = Net
  Income (Loss)/Average common equivalent shares               $(4,569,000)         $ 4,865,000        $(3,845,000)
                                                                62,262,000           46,736,000         42,181,000
Earnings (Loss) Per Share                                            $(.07)               $0.10             $(0.09)

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edmund Zilliner, Appellant.

Order, entered on January 17, 1962, denying, without a hearing, application of defendant for a writ of error *coram nobis*to vacate a judgment rendered October 18, 1960, convicting appellant upon his plea of guilty to an indictment charging robbery in the first degree, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and the matter remanded for a hearing. The conviction upon such indictment was to cover the same as well as two other felony indictments. The robbery indictment pleaded to and one of the other indictments arose out of an incident involving the alleged assault and robbery of a correction officer connected with the Bronx City Prison while the defendant and two certain other inmates were attempting to escape from the prison. The defendant in his affidavit alleges that he was induced to plead guilty by reason of the alleged fraudulent threatening and coercive statements of the District Attorney that if he did not so plead, he would be brought to trial and convicted not only upon the robbery indictment but also upon the other indictments and that upon such conviction the defendant “ would be sentenced to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment as a fourth (4) felony offender” [which in fact and law could not be]; that the fellow officers of the particular correction officer who “was pressing the charges would do every thing possible to bring about defendant’s conviction ”; and that the defendant then believed “ that <he could not receive a fair trial in that county due to the close relationship between the district attorney and the * * * correction officer ” and believed that the District Attorney “would, at all cost, have him convicted on the two indictments and sentence him to life imprisonment ”, The Assistant District Attorney in his affidavit opposing the motion says that, “ at the time of plea of guilty, there was a conference at the bench between him, a representative of the Legal Aid Society and the presiding judge, during which time it was agreed that if - the inmate pleaded guilty to the crime of Robbery * * * the other-, two indictments pending against the said inmate * * * would be taken into, consideration and dismissed.” The Assistant District Attorney’s affidavit, however, does not give the details of such conference and is silent as to what was' said to defendant or his counsel. It may very well be that there is no basis for defendant’s claims, but the affidavit of the Assistant District *807Attorney, together with the transcript of the proceedings in court do not “ conclusively demonstrate” the falsity of the defendant’s allegations. Under the circumstances, he is entitled to a hearing. *(People*v. *Picciotti,*4 N Y 2d 340; *People*v. *Bebe,*19 A D 2d 618; *People*v. *Earl,*19 A D 2d 708.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EUSTACE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-94-52, CA-99-20-3) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eustace Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Eustace Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown , Nos. CR-94-52; CA-99-20-3 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 14, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[114th Congress Public Law 306]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 1522]]

Public Law 114-306
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 830 Kuhn Drive in Chula Vista, California, as the ``Jonathan `J.D.' De 
 Guzman Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 16, 2016 -  [H.R. 5948]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JONATHAN ``J.D.'' DE GUZMAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 830 Kuhn Drive in Chula Vista, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Jonathan `J.D.' De Guzman Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jonathan 
`J.D.' De Guzman Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 16, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5948:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Nov. 30, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### §2745. Fund transfer authority

#### (a) Transfer to other Federal agencies

The Secretary of Energy may transfer funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant to a DOE national security authorization to other Federal agencies for the performance of work for which the funds were authorized. Funds so transferred may be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the authorizations of the Federal agency to which the amounts are transferred.

#### (b) Transfer within Department of Energy

#### (1) Transfers permitted

Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Energy may transfer funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant to a DOE national security authorization to any other DOE national security authorization. Amounts of authorizations so transferred may be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for the same period as the authorization to which the amounts are transferred.

#### (2) Maximum amounts

Not more than 5 percent of any such authorization may be transferred to another authorization under paragraph (1). No such authorization may be increased or decreased by more than 5 percent by a transfer under such paragraph.

#### (c) Limitations

The authority provided by this subsection to transfer authorizations—

(1) may be used only to provide funds for items relating to activities necessary for national security programs that have a higher priority than the items from which the funds are transferred; and

(2) may not be used to provide funds for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds.

#### (d) Notice to Congress

The Secretary of Energy shall promptly notify the congressional defense committees of any transfer of funds to or from any DOE national security authorization.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLVII, §4705, formerly div. C, title XXXVI, §3624, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2758; renumbered div. D, title XLVII, §4705, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(j)(2)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1781.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 7386d of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 108–136.
#### Joseph Solowe, Respondent, v. Kordell Sportswear, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Interlocutory judgment, entered on June 20, 1960, directing defendants to account to the plaintiff,' unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the amended complaint dismissed, with costs to defendants-appellants. This action is one for damages for breach of a contract of employment as salesman on a commission basis for the period September 1,1954 to June 30, 1955. On the trial the parties stipulated the sole questions to be determined by the court were (1) whether as alleged in the amended complaint the contract of employment was for the term from September 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955; and (2) whether plaintiff was wrongfully discharged on January 17, 1955. The trial court rendered a decision for the plaintiff on the theory that the contract of employment was one from year to year, a theory not advanced by plaintiff in his complaint or at the trial. The evidence fails to establish employment for any definite period, and we find the employment was one at will. In a nonjury ease this court should enter the judgment the trial court should have entered. *(Mintz*v. *Clavin & Co.,*4 A D 2d 635, affd. 4 N Y 2d 886.) The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint should have been granted. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
#### § 77.807-2 Booms and masts; minimum distance from high-voltage lines.

The booms and masts of equipment operated on the surface of any coal mine shall not be operated within 10 feet of an energized overhead powerline. Where the voltage of overhead powerlines is 69,000 volts, or more, the minimum distance from the boom or mast shall be as follows:

| Nominal power line voltage (in 1,000 volts) | Minimum distance (feet) |
| --- | --- |
| 69 to 114 | 12 |
| 115 to 229 | 15 |
| 230 to 344 | 20 |
| 345 to 499 | 25 |
| 500 or more | 35 |
### §101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers

Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: "I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

(July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 643.)
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.705-1 Work on high-voltage lines. ( a ) Section 75.705 specifically prohibits work on energized high-voltage lines underground;
( b ) No high-voltage line, either on the surface or underground, shall be regarded as deenergized for the purpose of performing work on it, until it has been determined by a qualified person (as provided in § 75.153) that such high-voltage line has been deenergized and grounded. Such qualified person shall by visual observation ( 1 ) determine that the disconnecting devices on the high-voltage circuit are in open position and
( 2 ) ensure that each ungrounded conductor of the high-voltage circuit upon which work is to be done is properly connected to the system-grounding medium. In the case of resistance grounded or solid wye-connected systems, the neutral wire is the system-grounding medium. In the case of an ungrounded power system, either the steel armor or conduit enclosing the system or a surface grounding field is a system grounding medium;
( c ) No work shall be performed on any high-voltage line on the surface which is supported by any pole or structure which also supports other high-voltage lines until: ( 1 ) All lines supported on the pole or structure are deenergized and grounded in accordance with all of the provisions of this section which apply to the repair of energized surface high-voltage lines; or
( 2 ) the provisions of §§ 75.705-2 through 75.705-10 have been complied with, with respect to all lines, which are supported on the pole or structure.
( d ) Work may be performed on energized surface high-voltage lines only in accordance with the provisions of §§ 75.705-2 through 75.705-10, inclusive.
<PAGE>
                          STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                       ------------------------------------------
                                                                          1996            1995           1994
                                                                       -----------    ------------    -----------
 
<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>             <C>
Average share outstanding...........................................    40,879,000      36,008,000     30,161,000
Average common and common Equivalent shares outstanding.............    40,879,000      36,008,000     30,161,000
Net income..........................................................   $(2,506,000)    $(4,867,000)  $(20,645,000)
Preferred stock dividend............................................   $(1,725,000)    $(1,725,000)  $ (1,683,000)
Computation of Earnings Per Share = Net Income/Average common
  equivalent shares.................................................   $(4,231,000)    $(6,592,000)  $(22,328,000)
                                                                        40,879,000      36,008,000     30,161,000
Earnings per share..................................................   $     (0.10)    $     (0.18)  $      (0.74)
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
**Exhibit15**

November 14, 2006

The Board ofDirectors

Credit Suisse (USA), Inc.

New York, New York

Re:  Registration statements No. 333-131970,333-116241, 333-86720, 333-71850, 333-62422, 333-07657, 333-34149, 333-53499,333-73405 and 333-30928

With respect to thesubject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated November 14, 2006 related to our review of interimfinancial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report is not consideredpart of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independentregistered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by anindependent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7and 11 of the Act.
| /s/ KPMG LLP        |   |   |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| New York, New  York |   |   |

 

----
### The geology and ore deposits of the Coeur d'Alene district, Idaho

By: F. L. RansomeFrank Cathcart Calkins

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp62

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report** 
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.