alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84331-84332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28603]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E.

[[Page 84332]]

Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than January 27, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice 
President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b39342855282938553a0b0b1712181a0f1214150855381416161e150f083b191408551d09195514091c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9fddd0ccb1cccddcb1deefeff3f6fcfeebf6f0f1ecb1dcf0f2f2faf1ebecdffdf0ecb1f9edfdb1f0edf8">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Vineyard Bancorp, MHC, Edgartown, Massachusetts; to become a 
mutual bank holding company by acquiring Martha's Vineyard Savings 
Bank, Edgartown, Massachusetts.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 21, 
2020.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2020-28603 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 905.761 Areas designated unsuitable for surface coal mining by act of Congress.

Part 761 of this chapter, *Areas Designated by Act of Congress,* shall apply to surface coal mining operations.
§ 1662.28 Publications for sale through the Government Publishing Office. The public may purchase publications containing information pertaining to the program, organization, functions, and procedures of SSS from the electronic U.S. Government Bookstore maintained by the Government Publishing Office. The publications for sale include but are not limited to: ( a ) Title 50, Chapter 49, of the United States Code (the Military Selective Service Act);
( b ) Title 32, Subtitle B, Chapter XVI, of the Code of Federal Regulations (Selective Service System Regulations);
( c ) Federal Register issues; and
( d ) Legal Aspects of the Selective Service System.
§ 735.4 Responsibility. ( a ) The Director shall administer the State grant program for the development, administration, and enforcement of State programs under this part.
( b ) The Director or his authorized designee shall receive, review and approve grant applications under this part.
[42 FR 62706, Dec. 13, 1977. Redesignated at 44 FR 15312, Mar. 13, 1979, and amended at 47 FR 38491, Aug. 31, 1982]
#### THOMPSON, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Sarah De W. Thompson, as administratrix, against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. A. J. Rose, for appellant. C. F. Brown, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

O’BRIEN, J., dissents.
PUBLIC LAW 115–108—JAN. 8, 2018 131 STAT. 2267 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 267: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 115–49 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Mar. 15, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–108 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To redesignate the Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site in the State 

of Georgia, 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 ‘‘Martin Luther King, Jr. National 

Historical Park Act of 2017’’. 

SEC. 2. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. 

The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to establish the Martin Luther King, 

Junior, National Historic Site in the State of Georgia, and for 

other purposes’’ (Public Law 96–428) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) of the first section, by striking ‘‘the 

map entitled ‘Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic 

Site Boundary Map’, number 489/80,013B, and dated September 

1992’’ and inserting ‘‘the map entitled ‘Martin Luther King, 

Jr. National Historical Park Proposed Boundary Revision’, numbered 489/128,786 and dated June 2015’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Martin Luther 

King, Jr. National Historical Park’’; 

(3) by striking ‘‘national historic site’’ each place it appears 

and inserting ‘‘national historical park’’; and 

(4) by striking ‘‘historic site’’ each place it appears and 

inserting ‘‘historical park’’. 

SEC. 3. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law (other than this Act), map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to ‘‘Martin 

Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site’’ shall be deemed to 

be a reference to ‘‘Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical 

Park’’. 

Approved January 8, 2018. 

Martin Luther 

King, Jr. 

National 

Historical Park 

Act of 2017. 

54 USC 320101 

note. 

Jan. 8, 2018 

[H.R. 267]
~G USGS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Science forachanging world U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1411-B

Porosity and hydraulic conductivity of the Park City-State Bridge zone—PLATE 9
Geldon, A.L, 2002, Hydrologic properties and ground-water fiow systems ofthe Paleozoic rocks in the Upper
Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding the San Juan Basin

Fontenelle

{\ Reservoir

WYOMING _ Ruer
SOLORADQ

2 Se aS Ls a
S 4 Bar SuiphadSpiires> 7 ass

Castlelp
Pe

v
J

BOUNDARY OF
UPPER COLORADO
RIVER BASIN

Fan 37°

EXPLANATION

a Area where the Park City-State Bridge zone is missing because of erosion
or nondeposition

Unit-Averaged Porosity

—3——— Line of equal estimated unit-averaged porosity—Dashed where approximately
located. Interval is 1 percent
° Site at which unit-averaged porosity was estimated as the mean of

laboratory determined values in a borehole interval representative of
the entire Park City-State Bridge zone at the site—Number shown is the
mean porosity in the interval, in percent
Unit-Averaged Hydraulic Conductivity
Relative unit-averaged hydraulic conductivity

Moderate

Small

—001—— Line of equal estimated unit-averaged hydraulic conductivity—Dashed
where approximately located. Interval, in feet per day, is variable

Limit of data

Data Sites—Number shown is hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day

UES Site at which estimate was based on permeability determined by a drill-stem
test
0.021
e Site at which esitmate was based on the mean of laboratory-determined

permeability values in a borehole interval

BOUNDARY OF
107° UPPER COLORADO
. RIVER BASIN

Navajo :

Reservoir 4

fy oh

AUD, »

aia

AREAEXCLUDED FROM STUDY

Navajo -

Reservoir ph

108° 108°
1:2,000,000 1:2,000,000
ES 0 25 50 5 100 MILES
ae oe Ee
I T T T T
0 2 50 75  100KILOMETERS 0 2 80 75 100KILOMETERS
UNIT-AVERAGED POROSITY

UNIT-AVERAGED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

Base from U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. base map, 1:2,500,000

IN ARIZONA, COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING
By
Arthur L. Geldon
2002

UNIT-AVERAGED POROSITY AND HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF THE PARK CITY-STATE BRIDGE ZONE OF THE CANYONLANDS AQUIFER IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND VICINITY
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Experimental Study of a Separated/Reattached Flow Behind a Backward-Facing Step. Re(sub h) = 37,000An experimental study was carried out to investigate turbulent structure of a two-dimensional incompressible separating/reattaching boundary layer behind a backward-facing step. Hot-wire measurement technique was used to measure three Reynolds stresses and higher-order mean products of velocity fluctuations. The Reynolds number, Re(sub h), based on the step height, h, and the reference velocity, U(sub 0), was 37,000. The upstream oncoming flow was fully developed turbulent boundary layer with the Re(sub theta) = 3600. All turbulent properties, such as Reynolds stresses, increase dramatically downstream of the step within an internally developing mixing layer. Distributions of dimensionless mean velocity, turbulent quantities and antisymmetric distribution of triple velocity products in the separated free shear layer suggest that the shear layer above the recirculating region strongly resembles free-shear mixing layer structure. In the reattachment region close to the wall, turbulent diffusion term balances the rate of dissipation since advection and production terms appear to be negligibly small. Further downstream, production and dissipation begin to dominate other transport processes near the wall indicating the growth of an internal turbulent boundary layer. In the outer region, however, the flow still has a memory of the upstream disturbance even at the last measuring station of 51 step-heights. The data show that the structure of the inner layer recovers at a much faster rate than the outer layer structure. The inner layer structure resembles the near-wall structure of a plane zero pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer (plane TBL) by 25h to 30h, while the outer layer structure takes presumably over 100h.Document ID19960047497Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJovic, Srba*(Eloret Corp. Moffett Field, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1996Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:110384A-961198NASA-TM-110384Accession Number96N33163Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-59-50Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960047497.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 1602.13 Judgmental Classification.

A classification action relating to a registrant's claim for Class 1-A-O, 1-O, 2-D, 3-A, or 4-D.
#### § 148.2 Classified programs.

Once a facility is authorized, approved, certified, or accredited, all U.S. Government organizations desiring to conduct classified programs at the facility at the same security level shall accept the authorization, approval, certification, or accreditation without change, enhancements, or upgrades. Executive Order, Safeguarding Directives, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), the NISPOM Supplement, the Director of Central Intelligence Directives, interagency agreements, successor documents, or other mutually agreed upon methods shall be the basis for such acceptance.
### §5372b. Administrative appeals judges

(a) For the purpose of this section—

(1) the term "administrative appeals judge position" means a position the duties of which primarily involve reviewing decisions of administrative law judges appointed under section 3105; and

(2) the term "agency" means an Executive agency, as defined by section 105, but does not include the Government Accountability Office.

(b) Subject to such regulations as the Office of Personnel Management may prescribe, the head of the agency concerned shall fix the rate of basic pay for each administrative appeals judge position within such agency which is not classified above GS–15 pursuant to section 5108.

(c) A rate of basic pay fixed under this section shall be—

(1) not less than the minimum rate of basic pay for level AL–3 under section 5372; and

(2) not greater than the maximum rate of basic pay for level AL–3 under section 5372.

(Added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(3) [title VI, §645(a)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–169; amended Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

GS–15, referred to in subsec. (b), is contained in the General Schedule which is set out under section 5332 of this title.

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(3) [title VI, §645(b)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–170, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a)(1) [enacting this section] shall apply with respect to pay for service performed on or after the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after—

"(1) the 120th day after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 21, 2000]; or

"(2) if earlier, the effective date of regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management to carry out such amendment."
|   | 1) | The      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period ended July 3, 2010,      and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Periodic      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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      Leonard F. Leganza   |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Leonard      F. LeganzaCEO    |
|   |                          |
|   | /s/      John L. Sullivan III |
|   | John      L. Sullivan IIICFO  |
#### In the Matter of R. & S. Realty Co., Appellant, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination of the State Rent Administrator, which denied an application by petitioner-landlord, pursuant to the State Rent and Eviction Regulations (§ 33, subd. 5), for a rent increase based upon the purchase price of the subject property, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated and entered July 13,1961 upon the decision of the court (29 Mise 2d 931), which denied its petition and dismissed the proceeding. Order reversed on the law, with costs, determination annulled, and matter remitted to the State Rent Administrator for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The Rent Administrator’s refusal to consider the “expert appraisal testimony” and the listings of other property similar to the subject property, offered by petitioner in support of its contention that the purchase price should be accepted as a basis for a rent increase, was erroneous *(Matter of Weiss*v. *Merman,*16 A D 2d 432). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Suffolk Roadways, Inc., Appellant, v. T. Bayles Minuse et al., Constituting the Suffolk County Water Authority, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to annul a determination of the Suffolk County Water Authority awarding a repaving contract to the two corporate respondents jointly, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 28, 1963, which dismissed the petition. Order reversed on the law; the Authority’s determination annulled; and the Authority directed to seek new bids pursuant to law and consistent herewith, with costs in this court and in the court below to petitioner against the respondent Authority. The findings of fact implicit in the opinion of the court below are affirmed. The facts as disclosed by the record are undisputed. Contractors were invited to bid by means of unit prices on 12 different items of work, 10 of which had 6 subdivisions based on quantity, on each of which a bid was required. The Authority furnished prospective bidders with no more than an estimate of the amount of the work involved. After the bids *889were in, the Authority’s manager informed its members that the unit-cost bids indicated that they were very dose and that his assistant had prepared a report which reflected the results obtained by applying the unit-cost bids against “ the actual amount of work done under each category in 1962.” On the basis of the bidders’ prices *“*applied to invoices submitted to [the] Accounting Department for work performed during 1962 ” the Authority awarded the contract for 1963 to the corporate respondents jointly, although they were lowest in only 10 of the 62 bids required on the basis of the Authority’s original instructions and forms. This belated and previously undisclosed method of the Authority by which the lowest bidder was determined, was based not on the total performance of the 1962 work but only on invoices submitted to the Authority’s accounting department; and all but 19 of the 62 bids required by the Authority were ignored. In our opinion, the determination reached by the Authority in the foregoing manner is contrary to law. It is the duty of the Authority, in advance of bidding, to convey in precise terms to prospective bidders the exact basis on which the contract will be awarded, so that each such bidder will be enabled to make an intelligent evaluation and bid, and so that possible favoritism may be avoided. In view of the above, we do not reach the question as to whether the Authority acted capriciously in determining that in any event, and despite the fact that petitioner may have been the lowest bidder, its bid should be rejected in the public interest. Presently, that question is academic. Beldoelc, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur. [39 Misc 2d 276.]
§ 553.14 How do I determine the worst case oil-spill discharge volume? ( a ) To calculate the amount of OSFR you must demonstrate for a facility under § 553.13(b), you must use the worst case oil-spill discharge volume that you determined under whichever of the following regulations applies: ( 1 ) 30 CFR part 254—Response Plans for Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast Line, except that the volume of the worst case oil-spill discharge for a well must be four times the uncontrolled flow volume that you estimate for the first 24 hours.
( 2 ) 40 CFR part 112—Oil Pollution Prevention; or
( 3 ) 49 CFR part 194—Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines.
( b ) If you are a designated applicant and you choose to demonstrate $150 million in OSFR, you are not required to determine any worst case oil-spill discharge volumes, since that is the maximum amount of OSFR required under this part.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00405-CR

Jerome Morgan Middlebrook, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 46795, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Jerome Morgan Middlebrook was placed on deferred adjudication

community supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against a public servant. Tex.

Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 20 03). At a subsequent hearing on the State’s motion to

adjudicate, appellant pleaded true to all but one of the alleged violations of supervision. The court

adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. S ee also Penson v. Ohio

, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State

, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 7 8); Currie v. State

, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State

, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State

, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.2

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and he was advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the r ecord and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: November 20, 2003

Do Not Publish