alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 735.15 Amount of grants. ( a ) *Amount of program development grants.* ( 1 ) For the first year of a program development grant the Director or his authorized designee shall approve grants for not more than 80 percent of the total of agreed upon costs pursuant to § 735.14(a).
( 2 ) For the second year of a program development grant the Director or his authorized designee shall approve grants for not more than 60 percent of the total agreed upon costs pursuant to § 735.14(a).
( 3 ) For the third year and each following year of a program development grant the Director or his authorized designee shall approve grants for not more than 50 percent of the total agreed upon costs pursuant to § 735.14(a).
( b ) *Amount of administration and enforcement grants.* ( 1 ) If no program development grant has been awarded, the Director or his authorized designee may approve the first administration and enforcement grant for not more than 80 percent of the agreed upon costs for administration and enforcement of the program.
( 2 ) If a program development grant has been awarded for only 1 year, the Director or his authorized designee may approve an administration and enforcement grant for 60 percent of the agreed upon costs for administration and enforcement of the program.
( 3 ) If a program development grant has been awarded for more than 1 year but less than 2 years, the Director or his authorized designee may approve the first administration and enforcement grant for 60 percent for that proportion remaining in the second year and for 50 percent for the proportion allocated to the third year.
( 4 ) For the third and following years, the Director or his authorized designee may approve administration and enforcement grants for 50 percent of the agreed upon costs for administration and enforcement of the program.
(Secs. 201, 501, 503, 705, Pub. L. 95-87, 91 Stat. 450, 467, 470, 520 (30 U.S.C. 1211, 1251, 1253, 1295))
[42 FR 62706, Dec. 13, 1977. Redesignated at 44 FR 15312, Mar. 13, 1979, and amended at 45 FR 2804, Jan. 14, 1980]
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.

§ 75.1600-3 Communications facilities; refuge alternatives. ( a ) Refuge alternatives shall be provided with a communications system that consists of— ( 1 ) A two-way communication facility that is a part of the mine communication system, which can be used from inside the refuge alternative; and
( 2 ) An additional communication system and other requirements as defined in the communications portion of the operator's approved Emergency Response Plan.
[73 FR 80700, Dec. 31, 2008]
P 2

Ms. Cecily M. Beau, Associate Director

Air Quality Division

District Department ofthe Environment

1200 1st Street, NE, 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20002Dear Ms. Beau:

On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the heathbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2)by establishing

a new 1-hour standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb). This new 1-hour standard will

protect public health by reducing people’s exposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours)

concentrations of SO2. An area meets the new standard when the 3-year average of the 99

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb.

Section 107(d)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) describes the process EPA follows for

designating areas as meeting or not meeting a new or revised NAAQS. Within one year of

establishing a new or revised standard, each governor must recommend a designation of

attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable, with appropriate boundaries, for areas within their

jurisdiction. Therefore, we ask that your state provide designation recommendations, including

appropriate area boundaries, for all areas by June 3, 2011, with respect to the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS.

The enclosed memorandum provides guidance to state and local air pollution control

agencies and tribes on the timeline and process for designating areas under the revised SO2standard. We plan to announce our intended designations no later than 120 days prior to

promulgating final designations. Following the announcement of intended designations, states

and tribes will have the opportunity to comment on any modifications EPA proposes to their

recommendations. EPA intends to complete designations by no later than June 3, 2012.

0 Printed oji 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-consumerfiber andprocess chlorinefree.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
814-2191.

Sincerely,

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

Enclosurecc: Mr. Rama Tangirala, Chief, Monitoring and Assessment Branch

Air Quality Division, DC Department of the Environment

0 Printed oil 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumerfiber andprocess chlorinefree.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
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.

§ 75.830 Splicing and repair of trailing cables. ( a ) *Splices and repairs.* ( 1 ) Splicing means the mechanical joining of one or more severed conductors in a single length of a cable including the replacement of: Insulation, semi-conductive tape, metallic shielding, and the outer jacket(s).
( 2 ) Repair means to fix damage to any component of the cable other than the conductor.
( 3 ) Splices and repairs to high-voltage trailing cables must be made: ( i ) Only by a qualified person trained in the proper methods of splicing and repairing high-voltage trailing cables;
( ii ) In a workman-like manner;
( iii ) In accordance with § 75.810; and
( iv ) Using only MSHA-approved high-voltage kits that include instructions for outer-jacket repairs and splices.
( b ) *Splicing limitations.* ( 1 ) Splicing of the high-voltage trailing cable within 35 feet of the continuous mining machine is prohibited.
( 2 ) Only four (4) splices will be allowed at any one time for the portion of the trailing cable that extends from the continuous miner outby for a distance of 300 feet.
[75 FR 17549, Apr. 6, 2010]
#### ANSLEY’S ADM’R *vs.*KING’S ADM’R.

[bill in equity to correct errors in probate decree.]

1. *Limitation of equitable relief against probate decree.*— Two years is the limitation prescribed by the statute, (Code, § 1915,) for filing a bill in chancery to correct an error of law or fact in the settlement of an estate before the probate court.

2. *JUmandmentof cause for amendment of bill.*— When a demurrer is interposed to a bill in chancery, on the ground (among others) tliat it shows on its face that the right to relief is barred by the statute of limitations, if the complainant does not ash leave to amend, by correcting a clerical error in the statement of a date, the appellate court will not remand the cause, at his instance, in order that he may have an opportunity to amend.

Appeal from the Chancery Court of Lowndes.

Heard before the Hon. Wade Keyes.

The bill in this case was filed, on the 28th August, 1866, by Robert L. Mayes, as the administrator of Mrs. Teresa Ansley, deceased, against O. P. King, as the administrator of Jeremiah Smith, deceased, for the purpose of correcting several errors in the decree of the probate court on the final settlement and distribution of said Smith’s estate; and was afterwards revived against King’s *279administrator. The bill alleged, that the decree of the probate court was rendered on the 2d May, 1854 ; but an exhibit to the bill, containing the complainant’s bill of exceptions to the rulings of the probate court on the settlement, showed that the decree was rendered on the 2d May, 1855. The defendant demurred to the bill, and assigned as one ground of demurrer, that the bill showed on its face that it was filed more than two years after the rendition of the decree complained of. The chancellor sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill, without stating the ground on which his decision was placed; and his decree is now assigned as error.

Thos. Williams, for appellant.

Watts, Judge & Jackson, *contra.*

R. W. WALKER, J.

Section 1915 of the Code is in these words : “ Where any error of law or fact has occurred in the settlement of any estate of a decedent, to the injui’y of any party, without any fault or neglect on his part, such party may correct such error by bill in chancery, within two years after the final settlement thereof; and the evidence filed in the court of probate, in relation to such settlement, must be received as evidence in the court of chancery, with such other evidence as may be adduced.”

The bill in this case was filed on the 28th August, 1856. Its only purpose is to correct mistakes made on the final settlement of an estate in the probate court. It is expressly alleged, that the decree sought to be corrected was rendered on the 2d day of May, 185.4. The bill thus shows, upon its face, that it was not filed within two years after the final settlement. This specific objection was pointed out by the demurrer interposed by the defendant; and if the allegation of the bill as to the date of the decree was a clerical error, the complainant should have corrected it in the court below. It is too late to do so here.

The decree of the chancellor must be affirmed.
§ 585.540 How will BOEM equitably distribute revenues to States? ( a ) BOEM will distribute among the eligible coastal States 27 percent of the following revenues derived from qualified projects, where a qualified project and qualified project area is determined in § 585.541 and an eligible State is determined in § 585.542, where a qualified project and qualified project area are determined in 585.541 and an eligible State is defined in § 585.113. Revenues subject to distribution to eligible States include all bonuses, acquisition fees, rentals, and operating fees derived from the entire qualified project area and associated project easements and are not limited to revenues attributable to the portion of the project area within 3 miles of the seaward boundary of a coastal State. The revenues to be shared do not include administrative fees such as service fees and those assessed for civil penalties and forfeiture of bond or other surety obligations.
( b ) The project area is the area included within a single lease or grant. For each qualified project, BOEM will determine and announce the project area and its geographic center at the time it grants or issues a lease, easement, or right-of-way on the OCS. If a qualified project lease or grant's boundaries change significantly due to actions pursuant to § 585.435 or § 585.436, BOEM will re-evaluate the project area to determine whether the geographic center has changed. If it has, BOEM will re-determine State eligibility and shares accordingly.
( c ) To determine each eligible State's share of the 27 percent of the revenues for a qualified project, BOEM will use the inverse distance formula, which apportions shares according to the relative proximity of the nearest point on the coastline of each eligible State to the geographic center of the qualified project area. If Si is equal to the nearest distance from the geographic center of the project area to the i = 1, 2, * * * nth eligible State's coastline, then eligible State i would be entitled to the fraction Fi of the 27-percent aggregate revenue share due to all the eligible States according to the following formula:
Formula 1 to paragraph (c) Fi = (1/Si) ÷ (Σi=1* * *n(1/Si))
#### § 585.649 [Reserved]
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 15

- 00544

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2010

- 40764

Style: Terry Neff and Iron Workers Mid

- South Pension Fund

v Nicholas F. Brady, David J. Butters, Willi am E. Macaulay, Robert B. Millard, Robert

K. Moses, Jr., Robert A Rayne, Bernard J. Duroc

- Danner and Burt M. Martin

Date motion filed * : June 1, 2017

Type of motion: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Stacy M. Neal)

Party filing motion: Appellees Nicholas F. Brady, David J. Butters, Willi am E. Macaulay, Robert B. Millard,

Robert K . Moses, Jr., and Robert A Rayne

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: June 8 , 2017
### §404f. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 404f, comprising former section 111 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3046 of this title.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > State Labor Legislation, 1937: Including Workmen's Compensation Legislation

              																	Sharkey, Charles F., 1894-					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*State Labor Legislation, 1937: Including Workmen's Compensation Legislation : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 654*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										January 1938,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4166,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 56.19024 Retirement criteria. Unless damage or deterioration is removed by cutoff, wire ropes shall be removed from service when any of the following conditions occurs: ( a ) The number of broken wires within a rope lay length, excluding filler wires, exceeds either— ( 1 ) Five percent of the total number of wires; or
( 2 ) Fifteen percent of the total number of wires within any strand.
( b ) On a regular lay rope, more than one broken wire in the valley between strands in one rope lay length.
( c ) A loss of more than one-third of the original diameter of the outer wires.
( d ) Rope deterioration from corrosion.
( e ) Distortion of the rope structure.
( f ) Heat damage from any source.
( g ) Diameter reduction due to wear that exceeds six percent of the baseline diameter measurement.
( h ) Loss of more than ten percent of rope strength as determined by nondestructive testing.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3549 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘William F. Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 3549 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William F. Clinger, 

5 Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘William F. Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 18, 

2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### § 57.20021 Abandoned mine openings.

Upon abandonment of a mine, the owner or operator shall effectively close or fence off all surface openings down which persons could fall or through which persons could enter. Upon or near all such safeguards, trespass warnings and appropriate danger notices shall be posted.
PD ______________

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

___________________________________________________

MITCHELL DEAN COCHRA N

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

___________________________________________________

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

____________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

I.

COMES NOW, Appellant in the above styled case, and makes and

files this his request for an extension of ti me to file his PDR and would show

unto the Court the following:

COURT BELOW: Tenth Court of Appeals

CAUSE NUMBER BELOW: NO. 10

- 14

- 00013

- CR

DATE FOR PETITION OF

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW REFUSED: None

PRESENT DEADLINE FOR

FILING APPELLANTS’ PDR : 6- 26

- 15

Mitchel Dean Cochran 1 PD-0793-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 6/26/2015 1:04:12 PM

Accepted 6/29/2015 3:14:29 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERKDAYS REQUESTED BY THIS

EXTENSION: 30

DATE TO WHICH EXTENSION

IS REQUESTED: 7

- 26

- 15

NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS

PREVIOUSLY GRANTED: None

I.

The Appellee’s request is based upon the following reasonable

explanation of the need for addi tional time, within the personal knowledge

of Charles W. McDonald, the attorney signing this mot ion, T.R.A.P. 10.5(b),

namely:

II.

Counsel’s daughter was hospitalized under emergency conditions on

June 4, 2015, requiring a week

- long trip to Los Angeles. Counsel’s father

passed away unexpectedly in a car wreck on June 11, 2015.

III.

WHEREFORE, this Attorney for the Appellant prays that the Court

grant this motion and extend the time and deadline for the filing of

Appellant’s brief , or the Cour t grant such additional time as is just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

____ ____________________ Charles W. McDonald

ATTORNEY AT LAW

2024 Austin Avenue

Waco, Texas 76701

(254) 752

- 9901

FAX: (254) 754

- 1466

SBOT NO. 13538800

Mitchel Dean Cochran 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and

foregoing instrument was served upon Abelino “Abel” Reyna, McLennan

County Criminal District Attorney, 219 N. Sixth Street, Suit e 200, Waco,

Texas 76701

- 1363, according to rule and law , this 26th day of June, 2015

.

/s/

_

__________________________ Charles W. McDonald

Mitchel Dean Cochran 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income, Balance Sheet, Statement of
Cash Flows and Statement of Changes in Shareholder's Equity and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000028385
<NAME> THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      591
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                        309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   995
<PP&E>                                          12,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,125
<BONDS>                                          3,484
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,951
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,047
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   948
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    149
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 97
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        97
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Order filed, November 29, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 12

- 00893

- CR

____________
EDUARDO PEREZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1171619



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 16, 2012

. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The

record has not been filed with the court. Because th e reporter’s record has not been filed
timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cantrece Addison , the official court reporter, to file the record in this
appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.
PER CURIAM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2016

No. 04-16-00641-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JACK C. GILBERT, JR., DECEASED,

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-048-PR

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Trudy Jane Schuetze Sundin filed her brief on November 2, 2016. Appellee 

filed his brief on November 18, 2016. On December 7, 2016, Appellant filed a reply brief, a 

motion for leave to file an amended brief, and the amended brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7; 4TH 

TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 8.4 (noting an amended brief “completely replaces the 

original brief”).

In her opposed motion for leave to the file an amended brief, Appellant notes she presents 

no new arguments in her amended brief, she “has simply added a single sentence to the prayer of 

[the original] brief to request the alternative relief of remand.” 

This court may permit a party to amend its brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7; ERC 

Midstream LLC v. Am. Midstream Partners, LP, 497 S.W.3d 99, 108 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). Because Appellant’s amended brief does not present any new 

argument, we GRANT Appellant’s motion for leave to file the amended brief. See ERC 

Midstream LLC, 497 S.W.3d at 108 n.2. Appellant’s amended brief is deemed timely filed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7; 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 8.4.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court