alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 937.774 Revision; renewal; and transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights. ( a ) Part 774 of this chapter, *Revision; Renewal; and Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Permit Rights,* shall apply to any such actions involving surface coal mining and reclamation operations permits.
( b ) Any revision to the approved permit will be subject to review and approval by OSMRE. ( 1 ) Significant revisions shall be processed as if they are new applications in accordance with the public notice and hearing provisions of §§ 773.6, 773.19(b) (1) and (2), and 778.21 and of part 775.
( 2 ) OSMRE shall make every effort to approve or disapprove an application for permit revision within 60 days of receipt or such longer time as may be reasonable under the circumstance. If additional time is needed, OSMRE shall notify the applicant that the application is being reviewed, but more time is necessary to complete such review, setting forth the reasons and the additional time that is needed.
( c ) In addition to the requirements of part 774 of this chapter, any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by a decision on the transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights, including an official of any Federal, State, or local government agency, may submit written comments on the application to the Office within thirty days of either the publication of the newspaper advertisement required by § 774.17(b)(2) of this chapter or receipt of an administratively complete application, whichever is later.
[52 FR 13813, Apr. 24, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 79672, Dec. 19, 2000]
#### In the Matter of Edward W. Whitbread et al., Appellants, v. Board of Appeals of the Village of Rockville Centre et al., Respondents.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Agustin Saavedra, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 132]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Sackett, J), rendered April 20, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the *317verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We also conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, who observed his friend fighting with the unarmed victim, went to his car and obtained a knife with which he repeatedly stabbed the victim in the back. Defendant’s intent to cause serious physical injury could be readily inferred from his actions *(see People v Getch,*50 NY2d 456, 465 [1980]), and there was no evidence that he was so intoxicated as to be unable to form the requisite intent *(see*Penal Law § 15.25). We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

152 KA 11-01947 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
DEREK GETMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

GENESEE VALLEY LEGAL AID, INC., GENESEO (JEANNIE D. MICHALSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Dennis S. Cohen, J.), rendered June 30, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting a sexual performance by a child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 817

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 817.122 Subsidence control: Public notice.

At least 6 months prior to mining, or within that period if approved by the regulatory authority, the underground mine operator shall mail a notification to all owners and occupants of surface property and structures above the underground workings. The notification shall include, at a minimum, identification of specific areas in which mining will take place, dates that specific areas will be undermined, and the location or locations where the operator's subsidence control plan may be examined.

[48 FR 24652, June 1, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
§ 756.16 Approval of the Hopi Tribe's abandoned mine land reclamation plan. The Hopi Tribe's Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan as submitted in July 1983, and amended in March and May 1988, is approved. Copies of the approved Plan are available at the following locations: ( a ) The Hopi Tribe, Hopi Abandoned Mine Land Program, Department of Natural Resources, Honahni Building, P.O. Box 123, Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039, Telephone: (520) 734-2441.
( b ) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Albuquerque Field Office, 505 Marquette Ave., NW., Suite 1200, Albuquerque, NM 87102, Telephone: (505) 248-5070.
[61 FR 6508, Feb. 21, 1996]
#### § 921.827 Special performance standards—coal processing plants and support facilities not located at or near the minesite or not within the permit area for a mine.

Part 827 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Coal Processing Plants and Support Facilities Not Located at or Near the Minesite or Not Within the Permit Area for a Mine,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations which includes the operation of coal processing plants and support facilities not located at or near the minesite or not within the permit area for a mine.
Final EIS Abstract 

WYOMING GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Type of Action: Administrative

Jurisdiction: Portions of Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, 

Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and Weston counties

Abstract: The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendments and Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) with 

input from 26 cooperating agencies. This document is considering amendments to six BLM and three Forest 

Service LUPs to address management of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in Wyoming. The final EIS describes 

and analyzes five alternatives for managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on approximately 16 million acres 

of BLM-administered and National Forest System lands and approximately 23 million acres of BLMadministered subsurface federal mineral estate. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No 

Action Alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current 

BLM and Forest Service LUPs, as amended. Alternative B is based on management actions from the SageGrouse National Technical Team’s (NTT) A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures. Alternative C is based on management actions submitted by various groups during public 

scoping. Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while providing 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat using ideas provided by scoping comments and input from 

Cooperating Agencies involved in the alternatives development process. The Proposed LUP Amendments

incorporates the guidance from the Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044 

(12/27/2011) BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy (WO IM No. 2012-044), 

the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5 (WY EO 2011-5), and additional management based on 

the NTT recommendations. This alternative emphasizes management of Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal 

habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to support population objectives set by the Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department (WGFD). Major planning issues addressed include energy and minerals, lands and 

realty (including rights-of-way), wildfire, vegetation management (including invasive species and conifer 

encroachment), livestock grazing, recreation, travel management, and socioeconomics.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment i 
Abstract Final EIS 

This page intentionally left blank.

ii Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
#### § 850.5 Definition.

As used in this part—

*Blaster* means a person directly responsible for the use of explosives in surface coal mining operations who is certified under this part.
#### § 903.846 Individual civil penalties.

Part 846 of this chapter, *Individual Civil Penalties,* applies to the assessment of individual civil penalties under section 518(f) of the Act.
### §441g–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 441g–2, comprising former section 1003 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3193 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 824
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 55020, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 824 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93445, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 824.2 Objectives. The objectives of this part are to— ( a ) Enhance coal recovery;
( b ) Reclaim the land to equal or higher postmining use; and
( c ) Protect and enhance environmental and other values protected under the Act and this chapter.
#### William B. Fitch, as Survivor, etc., Respondent, v. William J. Best, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued January 31, 1882;

decided February 10, 1882.)

*J. I (& F. Werner*for appellant.

*Joseph Halloek*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 873.1 Scope.

This part provides requirements for the award of grants to States or Indian tribes for the establishment of special trust accounts that will provide funds for coal reclamation purposes after September 30, 1995.
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.

§ 75.215 Longwall mining systems. For each longwall mining section, the roof control plan shall specify— ( a ) The methods that will be used to maintain a safe travelway out of the section through the tailgate side of the longwall; and
( b ) The procedures that will be followed if a ground failure prevents travel out of the section through the tailgate side of the longwall.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Application to Amend 

Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-1023 

June 15, 2015 

Petitioner: 

Hawk Aerial, LLC 

Kevin J. Gould, CEO 

114 Homesteads Rd. 

Placitas, NM 87043 

Cell: 425-218-3723 

Email: kevin.gould@hawkaerial.com 

Website: www.hawkaerial.com 

Greetings, 

By letter from the FAA dated April 8, 2015, an exemption was granted to Hawk Aerial for relief under 

Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 Regulatory Docket No. FAA2014-1023. 

By letter from the FAA dated June 3, 2015, the above exemption was amended to include the DJI 

Phantom 3 models. 

Hawk Aerial hereby requests that the exemption so granted and amended, be now further amended to 

include the DJI Inspire 1 and multirotor G4 Skycrane aircraft. 

• Respecting the DJI Inspire 1, petitioner offers and incorporates by reference all of the data and 

analyses included in prior grants of exemption for that model aircraft such as Exemption No. 

11458 and 11463. 

• Respecting the multirotor G4 Skycrane, petitioner offers and incorporates by reference all of the 

data and analyses included in prior grants of exemption for that model aircraft such as 

Exemption No. 11287. 

• The findings, rationale, conclusions and conditions contained in petitioner's FAA's Exemption No. 

11306, as amended, apply to this application to include the DJI Inspire 1 and multirotor G4 

Skycrane models in Exemption No. 11306. 

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional 

information that is required. 

Airman Certificate #2830326 

CEO, Hawk Aerial LLC
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9910 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9910

    To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the amount of 
 military leave provided to Federal employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2024

 Ms. Spanberger (for herself and Mr. Wittman) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the amount of 
 military leave provided to Federal employees, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Supporting Federal Employees in the 
National Guard and Reserves Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MILITARY LEAVE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    Section 6323(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``rate of 15 days'' and inserting ``rate of 36 days''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 580.10 What must I do before I may conduct prospecting activities?

You must have a BOEM-approved permit to conduct G&G prospecting activities, including deep stratigraphic tests, for hard minerals. If you conduct both G&G prospecting activities, you must have a separate permit for each.
EXHIBIT
4-266




---



##### 



Premises
     Article I
 Definitions
  Article II
 Amendments to Supplemental Indenture
 Section 2.01Amendment to Section 2.05 of the Supplemental Indenture
  1




---



##### 



Section 2.02Amendment to Article III of the Supplemental Indenture
  Section 2.03Amendment to Section 4.02 of the Supplemental Indenture
     2




---



##### 



Section 2.04Amendment to Section 4.03 of the Supplemental Indenture
    3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



Section 2.05Amendment to Section 4.04 of the Supplemental Indenture
       5




---



##### 



Article III
 Miscellaneous
 Section 3.01.Amendment Construed with Supplemental Indenture
 Section 3.02. Effectiveness and Effect of Amendment
 Section 3.03. Severability
 Section 3.04. Headings
 Section 3.05. Counterparts
 Section 3.06. Governing Law
  6




---



##### 



THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANYBy:
    /s/ Edward SolomonName:
    Edward SolomonTitle:
    Assistant Treasurer ATTEST:By:
    /s/Sandra Kay EnnisName:
    Sandra Kay EnnisTitle:
    Corporate Secretary THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., as TrusteeBy:
    /s/Alexis M. JohnsonName:
    Alexis M. JohnsonTitle:
    Assistant Vice President ATTEST:By:
    /s/ J. Michael BanasName:
    J. Michael BanasTitle:
    Vice President 7
C. A. No. 77-163.

#### State *v.*Paul Gazerro.

*Julius C. Michael-son,*Attorney General, *Nancy Marks Rahmes,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.

*Bevilacqua & Cicilline, John F. Cicilline,*for defendant.

Defendant’s motion for special assignment is denied.

The defendant’s motion to remand is denied without prejudice to filing a proper motion setting forth sufficient grounds to justify a remand.

The defendant is directed to file a transcript of the hearing in the Superior Court concerning his motion for bail pending appeal.

Bevilacqua, C. J., not participating.
### §300308. Historic property

In this division, the term "historic property" means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register, including artifacts, records, and material remains relating to the district, site, building, structure, or object.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3189.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 300308 | 16 U.S.C. 470w(5). | Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §301(5), as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3001; Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4019(a)(4), Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4764. |

Section

The words "historic resource" are omitted so that a uniform term is used throughout this division.
#### § 947.777 General content requirements for permit applications.

Part 777 of this chapter, *General Content Requirements for Permit Applications,* shall apply to any person who applies for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

[52 FR 13817, Apr. 24, 1987]
###### Editorial Note on Part 817

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 817.113 Revegetation: Timing.

Disturbed areas shall be planted during the first normal period for favorable planting conditions after replacement of the plant-growth medium. The normal period for favorable planting is that planting time generally accepted locally for the type of plant materials selected.

[48 FR 40161, Sept. 2, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
Map 2-5: Alternative B

Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions Related to

Greater Sage Grouse Habitat

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

Boundary

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit

Boundaries

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Core)

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Connectivity)

Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing

Federal Oil and Gas Estate

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Note: Identified restrictions displayed on this map

are in addition to existing restrictions already

approved through previous planning efforts.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 USC 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 operations of the Company.
 Dated: May 9, 2007
    /s/ DAVID E. MEADORDavid E. MeadorExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of The Detroit Edison Company  29
#### *In the Matter of Christine Burns. Salvatore Agostino et al., Appellants; Carol Burns et al., Respondents.*

*Orders of the Family Court,*New York County, entered September 13, 1978, permitting the New York City Department of Social Services to withdraw petitions seeking to review the foster care status of the three infant children of the respondent, and directing that said children be discharged from foster care and returned to the home of the biological mother, the respondent, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and the petitions reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. The children being in foster care either because of a finding of neglect or by voluntary placement by the biological mother who is unmarried, a written demand was made by her for the return of the children, and they were conditionally discharged in her care. Thereafter, petitions were filed to return the three children to foster care in view of the mother’s personal problems and the danger to the children. A Law Guardian was appointed for the children, but the said Law Guardian was temporarily absent, when the court granted withdrawal of the review petitions. Under the circumstances, and in view of the necessity to safeguard the best interest of the children, the proceedings should not have been terminated in the absence of the appointed Law Guardian. (See *Matter of Orlando F.,*40 NY2d 103.) Further, the decision granting the withdrawal did not have any testimonial basis, and there should have been an opportunity for evidence on the question of what would be in the best interest of the children. *(Matter*of *741Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543.) Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silver-man, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
#### Laszlo Palffy et al. v. Lorraine De Jong et al.

Motion for an enlargement of time granted only insofar as to extend the defendants’ time to serve and file the record on appeal and appellants’ points to and including April 23, 1962, with notice of argument for the May 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondents’ points are to be served and filed on or before May 7, 1962. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.