alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 784
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54958, 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 784 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93355, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 784.15 Reclamation plan: Land use information. ( a ) The plan shall contain a statement of the condition, capability, and productivity of the land within the proposed permit area, including: ( 1 ) A map and supporting narrative of the uses of the land existing at the time of the filing of the application. If the premining use of the land was changed within 5 years before the anticipated date of beginning the proposed operations, the historic use of the land shall also be described. In the case of previously mined land, the use of the land prior to any mining shall also be described to the extent such information is available.
( 2 ) A narrative of land capability and productivity, which analyzes the land-use description under paragraph (a) of this section in conjunction with other environmental resources information. The narrative shall provide analyses of: ( i ) The capability of the land before any mining to support a variety of uses, giving consideration to soil and foundation characteristics, topography, vegetative cover, and the hydrology of the proposed permit area; and
( ii ) The productivity of the proposed permit area before mining, expressed as average yield of food, fiber, forage, or wood products from such lands obtained under high levels of management. The productivity shall be determined by yield data or estimates for similar sites based on current data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State agricultural universities, or appropriate State natural resource or agricultural agencies.
( b ) Each plan shall contain a detailed description of the proposed use, following reclamation, of the land within the proposed permit area including a discussion of the utility and capacity of the reclaimed land to support a variety of alternative uses, and the relationship of the proposed use to existing land use policies and plans. This description shall explain: ( 1 ) How the proposed postmining land use is to be achieved and the necessary support activities which may be needed to achieve the proposed land use; and
( 2 ) Where a land use different from the premining land use is proposed, all materials needed for approval of the alternative use under 30 CFR 817.133.
( 3 ) The consideration which has been given to making all of the proposed surface mining activities consistent with surface owner plans and applicable State and local land use plans and programs.
( c ) The description shall be accompanied by a copy of the comments concerning the proposed use by the legal or equitable owner of record of the surface of the proposed permit area and the State and local government agencies which would have to initiate, implement, approve, or authorize the proposed use of the land following reclamation.
[59 FR 27937, May 27, 1994, as amended at 81 FR 93355, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54958, Nov. 17, 2017]
§ 1807.160 Communications. ( a ) The NACIC shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public as follows: ( 1 ) ( i ) The NACIC shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids if necessary to afford an individual with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the NACIC.
( ii ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the NACIC shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities.
( 2 ) Where the NACIC communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, telecommunication devices for deaf persons (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used to communicate with persons with impaired hearing.
( b ) The NACIC shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) This section does not require the NACIC to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where NACIC personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the NACIC has the burden of proving that compliance with § 1807.160 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the NACIC head or his or her designee after considering all NACIC resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the NACIC shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
Exhibit 12.  Questar Pipeline and Subsidiaries Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges  Year Ended December 31,200920082007(dollars in millions)EarningsIncome before income taxes and adjustment for income
or loss from equity investee$  88.2$  90.8$71.7Add (deduct):Fixed charges32.234.830.2Distributed income from equity investee3.3Capitalized interest(0.9)(0.4)(7.3)Total Earnings$122.8$125.2$94.6Fixed ChargesInterest expense$  29.5$  32.7$21.7Capitalized interest0.90.47.3Estimate of the interest within rental expense1.81.71.2Total Fixed Charges$  32.2$  34.8$30.2Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges3.83.63.1  For purposes of this presentation, earnings represent income before income taxes adjusted for fixed charges, earnings and distributions of equity investee. Income before income taxes includes Questar Pipelines share of pretax earnings of equity investee. Fixed charges consist of total interest charges (expensed and capitalized), amortization of debt issuance costs and losses from reacquired debt, and the interest portion of rental expense estimated at 50%.
### Part B—General
§ 580.31 Whom will BOEM notify about environmental issues? ( a ) In cases where Coastal Zone Management Act consistency review is required, the Director will notify the Governor of each adjacent State with a copy of the application for a permit immediately upon the submission for approval.
( b ) In cases where an environmental assessment is to be prepared, the Director will invite the Governor of each adjacent State to review and provide comments regarding the proposed activities. The Director's invitation to provide comments will allow the Governor a specified period of time to comment.
( c ) When a permit is issued, the Director will notify affected parties including each affected coastal State, Federal agency, local government, and special interest organization that has expressed an interest.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7018

LITTLETON HARRY FASSETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden, Eastern Correctional Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-817-AW) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Littleton Harry Fassett, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Littleton Harry Fassett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fassett v. Beshears , No. CA-98- 817-AW (D. Md. June 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### **CHAPTER 21B—TOBACCO CONTROL**
#### Morris E. Richardson, Doing Business as Latta Road Nursing Home, and Latta Road Nursing Home “A” et al., Respondents, v Robert P. Whalen, Individually and as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to petitioners. Memorandum: Special Term correctly held that it was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion for appellants to refuse to renew the operating certificates for Latta Road Nursing Home and Latta Road Nursing Home "A” as two separate 40-bed freestanding facilities and to insist upon issuing in lieu of the two certificates one operating certificate for an 80-bed facility. Appellants contend that consolidation of the two units into one in order to compel compliance with the Administrative Rules and Regulations of the Department of Health (10 NYCRR 713.1 [a] [2]) requiring a minimum of 60 beds in a freestanding nursing home was a proper exercise of discretion. The record establishes that final approval on January 30, 1969 of the first separate 40-bed facility was with the understanding that petitioner Richardson would not be required to add beds to that facility to bring it into compliance with the Department of Health regulation provided that the 40-bed unit proved financially and medically sound. Subsequently a 40-bed facility was approved on April 7, 1975. It appears from the record that the first unit was economically feasible and highly regarded by the physicians whose patients were placed there. There is no evidence to the contrary and there was no basis in the record for the determination that petitioner Richardson had not fully met the conditions attached to respondents’ January 30, 1969 approval of the 40-bed facility. The two 40-bed nursing homes must be deemed to have been exempted from the 60-bed minimum requirement. Special Term’s *995decision insofar as it declared null and void the determination of appellants to issue a single 80-bed operating certificate for petitioner Richardson’s nursing homes and directed the issuance of operating certificates for two 40-bed nursing homes should therefore be affirmed (see *Matter of Small v Moss,*277 NY 501; *Matter of Maytum v Nelson,*53 AD2d 221). The second ordering paragraph of Special Term declaring that the procedures of respondent with respect to the issuance of licenses were unconstitutional is unnecessary to the determination herein and is without warrant in the record. The fourth ordering paragraph restraining respondents pending an administrative hearing is moot inasmuch as no hearing has been directed. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
#### §§ 219.105-219.106 [Reserved]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NORTHWEST

Prepared in cooperation with the Geological Survey of Pakistan

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1599
PLATE 2

SOUTHEAST ft

UPPER PART

|

GHAZIJ FORMATION
| MIDDLE PART

LOWER PART

EXPLANATION
oe. 22) CONGLOMERATE

SANDSTONE

SHALE, SILTSTONE, THIN SANDSTONE

CARBONACEOUS SHALE

(a COAL

LIMESTONE

COVERED

HERRINGBONE CROSS-LAMINATION

«RIPPLE LAMINATION
HORIZONTAL LAMINATION

WAVY LAMINATION

<S_ TROUGH CROSS-LAMINATION
@2~ CONVOLUTE BEDDING
BP BALL AND PILLOW STRUCTURES
\\_ PALEOCURRENT AZIMUTH (| NORTH)
1—” __ IMBRICATION
\\\ 74 FORESET LAMINAE
<< \\ CLIMBING RIPPLE LAMINATION

vv

MS-7

FOSSILIFEROUS

BURROWS

4 Kk ROOTLETS

Oy

MS
DH

OYSTER SHELLS 40
COQUINA Wg
OPHIOMORPHA

MEASURED SECTION

DRILL HOLE
PMDC, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 0-0
GSP, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF PAKISTAN

Measured sections compiled during field studies by the authors and modified
from unpublished sections of J.A. Reinemund, U.S. Geological Survey

STRATIGRAPHIC SECTIONS SHOWING COAL BEDS AND ASSOCIATED LITHOLOGIES IN THE MIDDLE PART OF THE

INTERIOR—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA—1999

Stephen B. Roberts

LOWER EOCENE GHAZIJ FORMATION, SOR RANGE COAL FIELD, BALOCHISTAN, PAKISTAN

MS-19

MINED OUT?

DH-4
(PMDC)

Ss
TO QUETTA

PEOPLES REPUBLIC
OF CHINA

Y
AS nortH = AN
|
. ARABIAN SEA
a
S
SOR RANGE BreisiE
\ COAL AREA
DS 18
\.
{ \
\ \
\ \
SON
YS
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
4
\ 1
V4
0 1 2M \
== Sel }
0 1 2 3KM
\
|
)
023 Measured section /
ePH-4 Drill hole \
——— Unimproved road NN
ert E 7
30°05' -}-

act
a
eS)

MIDDLE PART
GHAZIJ FORMATION

LOWER PART |

eo... ZUSGS

INDEX MAP SHOWING MEASURED SECTION AND DRILL HOLE LOCATIONS science for a changing world
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
#### BLAKE v. MALLIET.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Account Stated—Complaint—Amendment.

Under Municipal Court Act, § 166 (Laws 1902, p. 1542, c. 580), requiring the Municipal Court of New York City to permit the amendment of pleadings at any time, if substantial justice will be promoted thereby, the court can grant leave at the beginning of a trial to amend a complaint on an account stated to an action to recover on a check indorsed by defendant and returned for nonpayment

2. Same—Trial—Cross-Examination—Error.

Where, at the beginning of a trial, a plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint so as to change his action from one on an account stated to one on an indorsement of a check returned for nonpayment, it was error to refuse defendant the right to test plaintiff’s credibility by exposing his inconsistency on cross-examination.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by George H. Blake against William A. Malliet. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Louis Steckler, for appellant.

Watson & Kristeller, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

As the action was originally brought, the plaintiff alleged in a written complaint an account stated, and claimed the balance due under that account, of $82.75. The answer denied the account stated, affirmatively alleged payment, and set up as a defense that the parties plaintiff and defendant were copartners, and that the accounts between them were still unadjusted. At the very beginning of the trial, the plaintiff having taken the stand and been sworn for himself, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to an action to *162recover the sum of $82.75, being the amount of a check drawn by a third party to the order of the defendant, indorsed by him, delivered to the plaintiff, returned for nonpayment, and subsequently delivered to the defendant upon his promise to pay the same. The defendant objected that such an amendment would change the whole cause of action. The motion was granted. To this the defendant took an exception, but declined to ask for an adjournment. This amendment completely changed the issues, but, under section 166 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1542, c. 580), it was within the power of the court to grant it. This, however, did not prevent the defendant from exposing plaintiff’s inconsistency upon cross-examination, and thus to test his credibility. The denial of this right to the defendant constituted error.- Upon the whole case, the interests of justice require a new trial.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           Year                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Feb-02-1997          Feb-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-29-1996          Feb-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Feb-02-1997          Nov-02-1997
<CASH>                                        7,538                 668
<SECURITIES>                                      0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,160               3,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                  80,359             111,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             92,842             117,942
<PP&E>                                       59,106              68,846
<DEPRECIATION>                              (26,527)            (29,441)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              132,808             164,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        32,408              38,884
<BONDS>                                           0                   0
<COMMON>                                          1                   1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                   72,824              76,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                132,808             164,213
<SALES>                                     278,819              76,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            278,819              76,163
<CGS>                                       186,531              49,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               186,531              49,449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            3,033                 980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               9,852               1,481
<INCOME-TAX>                                  3,794                 578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           6,058                 903
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                  6,058                 903
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.40                 .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.39                 .18
        

</TABLE>
§ 37.580 What is recovery of funds and when should I consider including it in my TIA? ( a ) Recovery of funds refers to the use of the authority in 10 U.S.C. 2371 to include a provision in certain types of agreements, including TIAs, that require a recipient to make payments to the Department of Defense or another Federal agency as a condition of the agreement. Recovery of funds is a good tool in the right circumstances, at the discretion of the agreements officer and the awarding organization, but its purpose is not to augment program budgets. It may be used to recover funds provided to a recipient through a TIA or another Federal procurement or assistance instrument, and the recovery should not exceed the amounts provided. Recovery of funds is distinct from program income, as described in § 37.835.
( b ) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2371, as implemented by policy guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the payment amounts may be credited to an existing account of the Department of Defense and used for the same program purposes as other funds in that account.
( c ) Before you use the authority to include a provision for recovery of funds, note that 10 U.S.C. 2371 requires you to judge that it would not be feasible or appropriate to use for the research project a standard grant or cooperative agreement (in this instance, a “standard cooperative agreement” means a cooperative agreement without a provision for recovery of funds). You satisfy that 10 U.S.C. 2371 requirement when you judge that execution of the research project warrants inclusion of a provision for recovery of funds.
§ 1900.34 Requests for expedited processing. ( a ) *Expedited processing requests.* Requests for expedited processing shall be submitted to the Coordinator in accordance with §§ 1900.03, 1900.11, and 1900.12. Such requests will be approved only when a compelling need is established to the satisfaction of the Agency. Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of a request for expedited processing, the Agency will decide whether to grant expedited processing and will notify the requester of its decision. A *compelling need* is deemed to exist: ( 1 ) When the matter involves an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
( 2 ) When the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information and the information is relevant to a subject of public urgency concerning an actual or alleged Federal Government activity.
( b ) *Expedited processing appeals.* Denials of requests for expedited processing may be appealed to the CIA's Agency Release Panel via the Coordinator and shall be acted upon expeditiously.
§ 1656.9 Alternative service worker's responsibilities. ( a ) A registrant classified in Class 1-W is required to comply with all orders issued under this part.
( b ) A registrant classified in Class 1-W is liable to perform 24 months of creditable time toward completion of Alternative Service, unless released earlier by the Director.
Order entered November 1 3 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00142
- CV DARREN MELTON, Appellant

V. 601 JEALOUSE, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cou rt at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 06444
- B



### O RDER Before the Court is the November 11, 2019 second request of Robin Washington, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, for an extension of time to file the repor ter’s record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to November 18, 2019 . We caution Ms. Washington, that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### State Division of Human Rights, Respondent, v Stromberg Carlson Corporation, Petitioner, and I. U. E., Local No. 338, Respondent.

Determination unanimously reversed insofar as it awarded damages and otherwise confirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: The commissioner’s finding that the complainant was willing and able to work until the day she gave birth is not supported by substan- . tial evidence (see *SDHR [Truitt] v Stromberg Carlson,*66 AD2d 990). The matter is remitted to the division for the purpose of making an appropriate evidentiary record. (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) PresentMoule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.