alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 785
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54965, 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 785 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93379-93381, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 785.11 Anthracite surface coal mining and reclamation operations. ( a ) This section applies to any person who conducts or intends to conduct anthracite surface coal mining and reclamation operations in Pennsylvania.
( b ) Each person who intends to conduct anthracite surface coal mining and reclamation operations in Pennsylvania shall apply for and obtain a permit in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. The following standards apply to applications for and issuance of permits: ( 1 ) In lieu of the requirements of 30 CFR parts 816-817, the requirements of 30 CFR part 820 shall apply.
( 2 ) All other requirements of this chapter including the bonding and insurance requirements of 30 CFR 800.70, except the bond limits and the period of revegetation responsibility, to the extent they are required under sections 509 or 510 of the Act, shall apply.
( c ) If the Pennsylvania anthracite permanent regulatory program in effect on August 3, 1977, is amended with respect to environmental protection performance standards, the Secretary shall issue additional regulations necessary to meet the purposes of the Act.
[44 FR 15370, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44780, Sept. 30, 1983]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Soil, water, and air programhighlights, fiscal year**
 
2014| 2015
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.72:
Item Number:0631-G-14 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001021847
 
April 25, 2018
#### § 1803.36 Notification of decision and right of further appeal.

The Coordinator shall communicate the decision of the Director, NACIC to the requester, NARA, or the particular Presidential Library within ten (10) days of such decision. That correspondence shall include a notice that an appeal of the decision may be made to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) established pursuant to § 5.4 of this Order.
#### § 2400.22 Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy shall process requests for declassification that are submitted under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, or the Privacy Act of 1974, in accordance with the provisions of those Acts.
§ 196.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
§ 26.230 How and when must I identify workplaces? ( a ) You must identify all known workplaces under each DOD Component award. A failure to do so is a violation of your drug-free workplace requirements. You may identify the workplaces— ( 1 ) To the DOD Component official that is making the award, either at the time of application or upon award; or
( 2 ) In documents that you keep on file in your offices during the performance of the award, in which case you must make the information available for inspection upon request by DOD Component officials or their designated representatives.
( b ) Your workplace identification for an award must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (*e.g.,* all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio studios).
( c ) If you identified workplaces to the DOD Component awarding official at the time of application or award, as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and any workplace that you identified changes during the performance of the award, you must inform the DOD Component awarding official.
Exhibit 1.6



                                    Autoriteit
                                    Financiet Markten
















Form for the disclosure of securities transactions
in the own issuing institution

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
Form for the disclosure of securities transactions in the own issuing institution



Part 1

<S>                                                               <C>
1.   Name of issuing institution:                                 New Skies Satellites N.V.

2.   Name of person obliged to notify:                            New Skies Satellites N.V.


Sort of security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3.   Sort of security:                                            Ordinary shares

     (Share/Bond/Option/Warrant/other)

4.   To be filled out if applicable:

               Nominal value of the security:                     0.05 EUR

               Optional series (call option/put option):

               Exercise price:

               Expiration date:


Transaction in the security indicated in questions 3 and 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5.   Date of the transaction:                                     13-03-03

6a.  Number of securities acquired in the transaction:            11,670

 b.  Number of securities sold in the transaction:

7.   Price of the securities:                                     3.80EUR

8.   Open/Close (in case of options)











To the best of my knowledge and belief I certify that the information set forth
in this statement is true, complete and correct:


Mary J. Dent, General Counsel of New Skies Satellites N.V.,
------------------------------------------------------------
Name

Rooseveltplantsoen 4                                              14 March 2003
------------------------------------------------------------      -----------------------------
Address                                                           Date

2517 KR The Hague
------------------------------------------------------------      -----------------------------
Postal code & city & country                                      Signature
</TABLE>
#### § 21.620 Award.

A grant, cooperative agreement, technology investment agreement, or other nonprocurement instrument subject to one or more parts of the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations (*see* appendix A to this part).
FERRY

STEVENS

OKANOGAN

LINCOLN

DOUGLAS

SPOKANE

PEND OREILLE

GRANT

CANADA

IDAHO

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:750,000

Lambert Conformal Conic projection: State Plane Washington North

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

119° 118° 117°

49°

48°

Uranium concentration in groundwater, 

in micrograms per liter, for wells

Uranium concentration in groundwater, 

in micrograms per liter, for springs

EXPLANATION

≤ 4.9

5.0 to 9.9

10.0 to 19.9

20.0 to 29.9

≥ 30.0

≤ 4.9

5.0 to 9.9

10.0 to 19.9

20.0 to 29.9

≥ 30.0

Figure 4. Magnitude and distribution of historical uranium concentrations in groundwater samples, northeastern Washington, 1977–2016.
Note for the Docket:

Discussions with Tesoro, Intalco, Ecology and Northwest Clean Air Agency

Throughout 2012, EPA had a series of staff and management

- level discussions and meetings with Tesoro, Intalco , Ecology and Northwest Clean Air Agency about the possible approach to BART we might take and later, about Tesoro and Intalco's proposals for alternatives to BART for their facilities. Through these exchanges, we
also received written information from th ese entities, and these materials are included in the docket for this rulemaking.
The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse

Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 3: Appendices

December 2013
BLM/WY/PL-14/006+1110 

The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The 

Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, 

livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by 

conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.
Searched for **http://www.bestbonesforever.org/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.bestbonesforever.org/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Certification PursuantTo 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/Afor the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald R. Cysewski,Executive Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)                 The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

 

2)                 The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:    September 30, 2008 |     | /s/ Gerald R. Cysewski                                   |
|--------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |     | Gerald R. Cysewski                                       |
|                                       | * * | *Executive Vice President  and Chief Scientific Officer* |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2064

___________ Harold Leroy Page; Jerry D. * Ashburn; Steven Bruce Hepperle, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Eldora Boys Training School, sued * Appeal from the United States as (1970 to 1974...Superintendent * District Court for the of Eldora Training School for Boys); * Northern District of Iowa. Larry Lukin, sued as Larry Lukin of * Eldora Training School for Boys; * [UNPUBLISHED] Richard Turner, sued as Ex-Attorney * General Richard Turner; Robert D. Ray, * sued as Ex-Gov. Robert D. Ray; * Unknown Superintendent, sued as * I.S.M.F. Superintendent; Warden * Haugh, sued as I.M.R. Warden Haugh; * Director of Iowa Department of * Corrections, sued as Director of Corr.; * Thomas Miller, sued as (1997...Tom * Miller, Atty. Gen.); Terry Branstad, * Governor, sued as Terry E. Branstad, * Gov.; State of Iowa; John Doe, sued as * John Doe #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, * 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, were * Cottage Manager & s, cottage Staff, * Health Center Staff, and Counselors * at the Eldora Training School for Boy & s; *TheH onorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for th e 1 Northern District of Iowa. -2- Mary Voss, a school teacher, at the * Eldora Training School for Boys, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 1998 Filed: May 8, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Attorneys.

___________ PER CURIAM. Iowa inmates Harold Leroy Page, Jerry D. Ashburn, and Steven Bruce Hepperle appeal the d istrict court & s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Havin g 1 carefullyreviewed the record, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in its order opinion. See8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §2572. International agreements on nuclear weapons data

The Secretary of Energy may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, enter into agreements with countries or international organizations to conduct data collection and analysis to determine accurately and in a timely manner the source of any components of, or fissile material used or attempted to be used in, a nuclear device or weapon.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIII, §4307, as added Pub. L. 110–181, div. C, title XXXI, §3129(a)(1), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 584.)
Filed 4/2/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 28

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Richard Isom, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20080310 - 20080314

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Gerald H. Rustad, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Nathan Kirke Madden, Assistant State’s Attorney, Williams County State’s Attorney Office, P.O. Box 2047, Williston, N.D. 58802, for plaintiff and appellee.

Mark Samuel Douglas, N.D. Public Defenders’ Office, 16 East Broadway, Williston, N.D. 58801, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Isom

Nos. 20080310 - 20080314

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Richard Isom appeals from a district court order denying his motion for credit for time served.  Isom argues the district court clearly erred in failing to give him credit for time served in custody.  Isom has not met his burden of showing he is entitled to additional credit for time served.  See Cue v. State, 2003 ND 97, ¶ 12, 663 N.W.2d 637.  We conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying Isom’s motion, and we affirm the district court’s order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
<PAGE>

                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this 1st day of January,
2001, by and between MICHAEL FOODS, INC., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Michael Foods"), and NORMAN A. RODRIGUEZ (hereinafter referred
to as "Rodriguez").

         WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Rodriguez have heretofore entered into an
employment agreement dated as of August 6, 1999; and

         WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Rodriguez desire to amend Sections 2 and 3
of said agreement to amend and clarify certain terms thereof.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the terms and
conditions set forth, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Section 2 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Rodriguez dated as of August 6, 1999 is hereby amended by substituting for the
phrase "shall continue through December 31, 2000", the following:

                    SHALL CONTINUE THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001

         2. Section 3 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Rodriguez dated as of August 6, 1999 is hereby amended by substituting for the
phrase "for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from January 1, 1999
through December 31, 2000 of at least $203,000", the following:

                    FOR EACH OF THE CALENDAR YEARS OF THIS AGREEMENT FROM
                    JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 OF AT LEAST
                    $213,150

Except as otherwise provided herein, the employment agreement between Michael
Foods and Rodriguez dated as of August 6, 1999 shall remain in full force and
effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date
and year above written.

                                 MICHAEL FOODS, INC.


                                 By           /s/ Gregg A. Ostrander
                                   ---------------------------------------------

                                 Its             Chairman/Pres./CEO
                                     -------------------------------------------

                                            /s/ Norman A. Rodriguez
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                               NORMAN A. RODRIGUEZ


                                        1
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00473

- CV

GILBERTO FRIAS APPELLANT

V.

W.F. FULLER & COMPAN Y

INVESTMENTS, INC. APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM O PINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “ Appellant's Motion To Dismiss Appeal .” It is the

court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal sha ll be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 21 , 2013

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 – Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission**

**(Case T-382/04)**

Customs union – Rice paper from Vietnam – Remission of import duties – Equitable relief – Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Error of the customs authority – Definition of manifest negligence – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – Principle of proportionality

Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 44-46, 70, 73-74,
92-94)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import duties in a particular case to be unjustified. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the application. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the Commission. |
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Duane L. Sinn, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rurban Financial Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.       Dated:March 22, 2007 By: /s/ Duane L. Sinn     Duane L. Sinn
§ 230.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Updates policies and responsibilities for financial institutions that serve Department of Defense (DoD) personnel on DoD installations worldwide. Associated procedures are contained in 32 CFR part 231.
( b ) Prescribes consistent arrangements for the provision of services by financial institutions among the DoD Components, and requires that financial institutions operating on DoD installations provide, and are provided, support consistent with the policies stated in this part.
§ 200.1580 Statistical sampling. ( a ) In meeting the burden of proof in § 200.2015, the DHA may introduce the results of a statistical sampling study as evidence of the number and amount of claims and/or requests for payment, as described in this part, that were presented, or caused to be presented, by the respondent. Such a statistical sampling study, if based upon an appropriate sampling and computed by valid statistical methods, shall constitute prima facie evidence of the number and amount of claims or requests for payment, as described in this part.
( b ) Once the DHA has made a prima facie case, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the burden of production shall shift to the respondent to produce evidence reasonably calculated to rebut the findings of the statistical sampling study. The DHA will then be given the opportunity to rebut this evidence.
( c ) Where the DHA establishes a number and amount of claims subject to penalties using a statistical sampling study, the DHA may use the results of the study to extrapolate a total amount of overpaid funds to be collected pursuant to 32 CFR 199.11.