alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Studies of geology and hydrology in the Basin and Range Province, southwestern United States, for isolation of high-level radioactive waste: Characterization of the Sonoran region, Arizona

By: Marion S. BedingerK. A. SargentW. H. Langer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1370D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### SUBCHAPTER III—SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
#### § 1907.14 Transmission.

Authorized holders must direct challenge requests to the CIA as specified in § 1907.03. The classified nature of the challenge, as well as the appended documents, require that the holder transmit same in full accordance with established security procedures. In general, registered U.S. mail is approved for SECRET, non-compartmented material; higher classifications require use of approved Top Secret facsimile machines or CIA-approved couriers. Further information is available from the CIA as well as corporate or other federal agency security departments.
§ 37.520 What is my responsibility for determining that the total project funding is reasonable? In cooperation with the program official, you must assess the reasonableness of the total estimated budget to perform the research that will be supported by the agreement. Additional guidance follows for: ( a ) *Labor.* Much of the budget likely will involve direct labor and associated indirect costs, which may be represented together as a “loaded” labor rate. The program official is an essential advisor on reasonableness of the overall level of effort and its composition by labor category. You also may rely on your experience with other awards as the basis for determining reasonableness. If you have any unresolved questions, two of the ways that you might find helpful in establishing reasonableness are to: ( 1 ) Consult the administrative agreements officers or auditors identified in § 37.505.
( 2 ) Compare loaded labor rates of for-profit firms that do not have expenditure-based Federal procurement contracts or assistance awards with a standard or average for the particular industry. Note that the program official may have knowledge about customary levels of direct labor charges in the particular industry that is involved. You may be able to compare associated indirect charges with Government-approved indirect cost rates that exist for many nonprofit and for-profit organizations that have Federal procurement contracts or assistance awards (note the requirement in § 37.630 for a for-profit participant to use Federally approved provisional indirect cost rates, if it has them).
( b ) *Real property and equipment.* In almost all cases, the project costs may include only depreciation or use charges for real property and equipment of for-profit participants, in accordance with § 37.685. Remember that the budget for an expenditure-based TIA may not include depreciation of a participant's property as a direct cost of the project if that participant's practice is to charge the depreciation of that type of property as an indirect cost, as many organizations do.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Willis Eve, Appellant, against Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

The relator Willis Eve appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered March 4, 1959, dismissing, after a hearing, a writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the Warden of Green Haven Prison. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
- 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 > Trend of Earnings Among White-Collar Workers During the War

              																	Plunkett, Margaret L. 						*Trend of Earnings Among White-Collar Workers During the War : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 783*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4259,			accessed on September 10, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### §9803. Restrictions

(a) None of the workforce authorities made available under this chapter may be exercised with respect to any officer who is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(b) Unless specifically stated otherwise, all workforce authorities made available under this chapter shall be subject to section 5307.

(c)(1) None of the workforce authorities made available under section 9804, 9805, 9806, 9807, 9809, 9812, 9813, 9814, or 9815 may be exercised with respect to a political appointee.

(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term "political appointee" means an employee who holds—

(A) a position which has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character; or

(B) a position in the Senior Executive Service as a noncareer appointee (as such term is defined in section 3132(a)).

(Added Pub. L. 108–201, §3(a), Feb. 24, 2004, 118 Stat. 464.)
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 493

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CV-14-951

BETH’S BAIL BONDS, INC.

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

OPINION DELIVERED SEPTEMBER 23, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH

DIVISION

[NO. 60CR-13-2844, 60CV-14-1547]

HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN,

JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM 

ORDERED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

Beth’s Bail Bonds, Inc. (BBB), appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s bondforfeiture judgment filed April 17, 2014, and the July 11, 2014 order denying BBB’s motion

to set aside the judgment. On appeal, the bonding company contends that (1) the circuit

court was without jurisdiction to enter a judgment; (2) the county attorney’s office had no

authority to demand judgment on behalf of the State; and (3) the circuit court abused its

discretion by not setting aside the bond-forfeiture judgment under Arkansas Rule of Civil

Procedure 60 (2014). We order rebriefing due to an inadequate addendum.

BBB’s third point on appeal asks this court to review the circuit court’s decision to

deny the motion to set aside the bond-forfeiture judgment. This motion was originally filed

on June 11, 2014, and the response was filed on June 18, 2014. An amended motion to set

aside forfeiture judgment and memorandum was filed on June 18, 2014, and the response was
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 493

filed on the same date. The addendum filed within BBB’s appellate brief contains only the

original motion filed June 11, 2014, and the order denying the motion to set aside filed July

11, 2014. 

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2014) provides that, if any pleading to

be included in the addendum was amended, the final version and any earlier version

incorporated therein shall be included. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(4), we order

BBB to file a supplemental addendum, providing the necessary pleadings, within seven

calendar days from the date of this opinion. 

Supplemental addendum ordered.

WHITEAKER and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree.

Charles D. Hancock, for appelant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
- 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 > Paid Vacations in American Industry, 1943 and 1944

              																	Brown, Pamela					,	Nix, James C.					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of Industrial Relations. 						*Paid Vacations in American Industry, 1943 and 1944 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 811*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1945,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4280,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 845.15 Assessment of separate violations for each day. ( a ) The Office may assess separately a civil penalty for each day from the date of issuance of the notice of violation or cessation order to the date set for abatement of the violation. In determining whether to make such an assessment, the Office shall consider the factors listed in 30 CFR 845.13 and may consider the extent to which the person to whom the notice or order was issued gained any economic benefit as a result of a failure to comply. For any violation which continues for two or more days and which is assigned more than 70 points under § 845.13(b), the Office shall assess a penalty for a minimum of two separate days.
( b ) In addition to the civil penalty provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, whenever a violation contained in a notice of violation or cessation order has not been abated within the abatement period set in the notice or order or as subsequently extended pursuant to section 521(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 1271(a), a civil penalty of not less than $3,068 will be assessed for each day during which such failure to abate continues, except that: ( 1 ) ( i ) If suspension of the abatement requirements of the notice or order is ordered in a temporary relief proceeding under section 525(c) of the Act, after a determination that the person to whom the notice or order was issued will suffer irreparable loss or damage from the application of the requirements, the period permitted for abatement shall not end until the date on which the Office of Hearings and Appeals issues a final order with respect to the violation in question; and
( ii ) If the person to whom the notice or order was issued initiates review proceedings under section 526 of the Act with respect to the violation, in which the obligations to abate are suspended by the court pursuant to section 526(c) of the Act, the daily assessment of a penalty shall not be made for any period before entry of a final order by the court;
( 2 ) Such penalty for the failure to abate the violation shall not be assessed for more than 30 days for each such violation. If the permittee has not abated the violation within the 30-day period, the Office shall take appropriate action pursuant to section 518(e), 518(f), 521(a)(4), or 521(c) of the Act within 30 days to ensure that abatement occurs or to ensure that there will not be a reoccurrence of the failure to abate.
[47 FR 35640, Aug. 16, 1982, as amended at 62 FR 63277, Nov. 28, 1997; 66 FR 58647, Nov. 21, 2001; 70 FR 70701, Nov. 22, 2005; 81 FR 44541, July 8, 2016; 82 FR 9354, Feb. 6, 2017; 83 FR 10616, Mar. 12, 2018; 84 FR 10676, Mar. 22, 2019; 85 FR 20836, Apr. 15, 2020; 86 FR 29515, June 2, 2021; 87 FR 15886, Mar. 21, 2022; 88 FR 24336, Apr. 20, 2023; 89 FR 23911, Apr. 5, 2024]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

16 April 2008

Case T-486/04

**Christos Michail**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Actions for annulment – Duty to provide assistance – Mental harassment)

**Application:**seeking annulment of the implied decision of 20 March 2004 by the Commission rejecting an application for assistance made
by the applicant under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

**Held:**The action is dismissed. Mr Christos Michail is to bear one half of his costs. The Commission is to bear its own costs and
to pay one half of the costs of Mr Michail.

**Summary**

*Officials – Mental harassment – Definition*

An official who claims to have been the victim of mental harassment must, irrespective of the subjective perception which
he may have had of the facts alleged by him, put forward a body of evidence proving that he has been subjected to conduct
aimed, on an objective view, at discrediting him or at deliberately impairing his working conditions, in other words, conduct
which, viewed objectively, is of an intentional nature.

(see paras 62, 63)

See: T‐7/98, T‐208/98 and T‐109/99 *De Nicola* v *EIB* [2001] ECR‐SC I‐A‐49 and II‐185, para. 286; T‐144/03 *Schmit* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐101 and II‐465, paras 64 and 65
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware corporation (the ‘‘Company’’), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the ‘‘Form 10-K’’) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                           |  |  |                         |
|---------------------------|--|--|-------------------------|
| Dated: September 25, 2007 |  |  | /S/ VICTOR INSETTA      |
|                      |  |  | Chief Executive Officer |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YEVGENY EUGENE SELIVANOV,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

XAVIER BECCERA,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 18

- 56214

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 05200

- RSWL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Former California state prisoner Yevgeny Eugene Selivanov appeals from

the district court’ s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus

petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a)

,

and reviewing de novo, see Bailey v. Hill , 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010), we

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# F ILED

FEB 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 56214

affirm.

It is a j urisdictional requirement that “the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’

under the conviction or sentence under a ttack at the time his petition is filed.”

Maleng v. Cook , 490 U.S. 488, 490

- 91 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) &

2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee , 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). It is undisputed that

Selivanov was no longer incarcerated or subject to post

- release supervision at the

time he filed his § 2254 habeas petition, but he contends that he is “ in custody ” for

habeas purposes because he is prohibit ed from holding public office as a result of

his California state conviction for embezzling public funds . Selivanov’s

contention is foreclosed by controlling precedent : t he inability to hold public

offic e is a collateral consequence that is not itself “sufficient to render an

individual ‘ in custody ’ for the purposes of a habeas attack [

. ] ” Maleng , 490 U.S. at

491

- 92 ; see also Williamson v. Gregoire , 151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998)

.

Selivanov cites no authority to support his argument that this court should

recognize an equitable exception to this rule in his case.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31304

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIPE MERCADO-VELIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:14-CR-26-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe MercadoVeliz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mercado-Veliz has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31304 Document: 00513243053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
No. 14-31304

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-31304 Document: 00513243053 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
#### Fritz Gutmann et al., Respondents, v. Hillside Farms Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

Motion to vacate order dated April 28, 1960, dismissing appeal, and to extend time to perfect appeal. Motion granted and time extended to the October Term, commencing October 3, 1960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar, upon condition that, within 20 days after the entry of the order hereon, appellants shall file an undertaking for $3,700, with corporate surety, to pay the judgment appealed *689from, together with interest thereon and costs of the appeal, in the event that the judgment be affirmed or the appeal therefrom be dismissed. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before September 1, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
December 14, 2015

Dear Mr. Brantley:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket

No. FAA

− 2015

− 3550). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material lis ted below, however the material was not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 12/28/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,
/S/ Program Analyst