alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28260]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket<greek-i> EPA-RO4-SFUND-2010-0893, FRL-9223-8]


Ore Knob Mine Superfund Site; Jefferson, Ashe County, North 
Carolina; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for 
reimbursement of past response costs concerning the Ore Knobe Mine 
Superfund Site located in Jefferson, Ashe County, North Carolina for 
publication.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
December 9, 2010. The Agency will consider all comments received and 
may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments 
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the 
settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. 
Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-
SFUND-2010-0893 or Site name Ore Knob Mine Superfund Site by one of the 
following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/sf/enforce.htm
    <bullet> E-mail. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcecddd5d2c8d9ce92ecddc9d0ddfcd9ccdd92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c6c5d555248594e126c5d49505d7c594c5d125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: October 22, 2010.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-28260 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Attachment C

Fumigant Reregistration Eligibility Decisions and Supporting Documents

Documents to support the reregistration or registration actions for the group of soil fumigants 

listed below can be found in the public docket at www.regulations.gov under the following 

docket numbers: 

Methyl bromide: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123 

1,3-dichloropropene: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0124 

Metam sodium/potassium: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0125 

Dazomet: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0128 

Chloropicrin: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350 

Iodomethane: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252 

Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS): EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0092
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Joseph Gulino, Respondent.

Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 22, 1978, as, upon granting defendant’s motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes, dismissed the indictment with leave to resubmit. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and indictment reinstated. Defendant was indicted for arson in the third degree and murder in the second degree as the result of a fire at a discotheque in which a fireman was killed fighting the blaze. A motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and to dismiss the indictment on the ground of insufficient evidence was made and *605granted with no reasons stated by Criminal Term. The record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of CPL 190.65. The expert testimony of a fire marshal that the fire was caused by a flammable liquid accelerant was supported by one of the firemen who fought the blaze and smelled gasoline inside the building. This testimony and the conditions at the scene of the fire establish the commission of arson. (The death of a fire captain as a result of injuries sustained in fighting the fire was uncontested.) There was evidence before the Grand Jury that the defendant had admitted commission of the crime. In addition, a disinterested witness placed defendant within a two-minute walk of the fire shortly after the blaze began. The evidence before the Grand Jury satisfied the requirements of CPL 190.65. Defendant’s other contentions lack merit. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Robert B. WISTER, petitioner, v. Jim NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, et al.

No. 06-1566.

Oct. 1, 2007.

Case below, 2006 WL 2853099.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: VERONICA CHAVEZ VARA,

Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00185-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Veronica Chavez Vara, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the 

Honorable Judge Phyllis Gonzalez, Associate Judge of the 388th District Court of El Paso, County, 

Texas. By her petition, Vara seeks to vacate an Order Confirming Support Arrearage signed and 

entered by the trial court on October 14, 2022. 

To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that the trial court committed 

a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Nationwide 

Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of 

Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both requirements. 

See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 
2

Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Except in unusual circumstances that are not applicable here, 

mandamus relief is not ordinarily available after a final judgment has been issued because relator

has an adequate remedy by direct appeal. See In re Esparza, No. 14-16-00748-CV, 2016 WL 

5947445, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 13, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam); 

In re Energy Transfer Fuel, L.P., 298 S.W.3d 348, 351 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009, orig. proceeding). 

“A judgment containing orders for future child support obligations must be appealed in the same 

manner as any other final judgment.” In re of T.G., No. 03-02-00090-CV, 2002 WL 31769031, at 

*5 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 12, 2002, no pet.); see also TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 101.023 (“Order” 

means “a decree,” “a judgment,” or “a final order unless [such is] identified as a temporary order 

or the context clearly requires a different meaning.”).

After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Vara has failed to 

show that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

July 26, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
#### § 28.303 Standards for length of staple for American upland cotton.

(a) Effective July 12, 1985, standards for the lengths of staple of American upland cotton shall be measurements as determined by the Suter-Webb Duplex Cotton Fiber Sorter in accordance with the test method prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. Ranges for each official staple length are shown in the table below. Staple standards exceeding 11⁄4 inches, in graduations of thirty-second inches, will be expressed in increments of .041 inches.

| Staple length | Upper quartile length range |
| --- | --- |
| 13/16 | .827-.847 |
| 7/8 | .909-.929 |
| 29/32 | .950-.970 |
| 15/16 | .990-1.010 |
| 31/32 | 1.031-1.051 |
| 1 | 1.072-1.092 |
| 11/32 | 1.113-1.133 |
| 11/16 | 1.154-1.174 |
| 13/32 | 1.195-1.215 |
| 11/8 | 1.236-1.256 |
| 15/32 | 1.277-1.297 |
| 13/16 | 1.318-1.338 |
| 17/32 | 1.359-1.379 |
| 11/4 | 1.400-1.420 |

[In inches]

(b) Cotton selected for the preparation of practical forms of staple standards shall, to the extent practicable, measure at the mid-point of the appropriate staple range indicated in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Length measurements shall be performed in accordance with the “Standard Test Method for Length and Length Distribution of Cotton Fibers (Array Method), ANSI/ASTM D 1440-77 (1982), which is incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). This standard test method has been adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and approved as an American National Standard by the American National Standards Institute. It is published in the “Annual Book of ASTM Standards,” Part 33, volume 07.02. Copies of the ASTM book and copies of ASTM standard D 1440-77 as a separate publication may be obtained from ASTM, Customer Service, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the ASTM standard test method is also on file at the Office of the Federal Register. A notice of any change in the ASTM standard test method cited herein will be published in the Federal Register.

[49 FR 28391, July 12, 1984]
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 277
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 277 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 277.6 Standards for financial management systems. ( a ) *General.* This section prescribes standards for financial management systems in administering program funds by the State agency and its subagencies or contractors.
( b ) *Responsibilities.* Financial management systems for program funds in the State agency shall provide for: ( 1 ) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of program activities in accordance with Federal reporting requirements.
( 2 ) Records which identify the source and application of funds for FNS or State agency activities supporting the administration of the Program. These records shall show authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays and income of the State agency, its sub- agencies and agents.
( 3 ) Records which identify unallowable costs and offsets resulting from FNS or other determinations as specified in § 277.16 and the disposition of these amounts. Accounting procedures must be in effect to prevent a State agency from claiming these costs under ongoing program administrative cost reports.
( 4 ) Effective control and accountability by the State agency for all program funds, property, and other assets acquired with program funds. State agencies shall adequately safeguard all such assets and shall assure that they are used solely for program authorized purposes unless disposition has been made in accordance with § 277.13.
( 5 ) Controls which minimize the time between the receipt of Federal funds from the United States Treasury and their disbursement for program costs. In the Letter of Credit system, the State agency shall make drawdowns from the U.S. Treasury through a U.S. Treasury Regional Disbursing Office as nearly as possible to the time of making the disbursements.
( 6 ) Procedures to determine the reasonableness, allowability, and allocability of costs in accordance with the applicable provisions prescribed in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415.
( 7 ) Support and source documents for costs.
( 8 ) An audit trail including identification of time periods, initial and summary accounts, cost determination and allocation procedures, cost centers or other accounting procedures to support any costs claimed for program administration.
( 9 ) Periodic audits by qualified individuals who are independent of those who maintain Federal program funds as prescribed in § 277.17.
( 10 ) Methods to resolve audit findings and recommendations and to follow up on corrective or preventive actions.
( c ) The standards in § 277.6(b) apply to subagencies or contractors involved with program funding.
[Amdt. 188, 45 FR 85702, Dec. 30, 1980, as amended at 79 FR 11, Jan. 2, 2014; 81 FR 66499, Sept. 28, 2016]
#### § 27.90 Bills for payment of fees and expenses.

The Cotton Division shall deliver bills to all persons from whom payment for fees or expenses on account of services under this subpart shall be due. Such bills shall be rendered as soon as practicable after the last day of each month for the amounts due and unpaid on such day. When necessary, in the discretion of the Area Director or the Director, any bill may be rendered at an earlier date for any fees and expenses then due by the person to whom such bill shall be rendered. Payment of any such bill shall be made as soon as possible after the rendition thereof, but in any event not later than 2 weeks after such rendition.

[48 FR 49213, Oct. 25, 1983]
DANIEL P. HOWE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0797

Opinion filed March 21, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Daniel P. Howe, pro se, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as premature. See Ritter v. McNeil, 

41 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
2

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### § 27.54 Inspection and sampling for delayed certification.

Such cotton must have been duly inspected and sampled, and the original samples thereof properly prepared in accordance with this subpart must be delivered to the Marketing Services Office not later than the date of issuance of the transferable notice, except when the delivery day fixed by such transferable notice is the last delivery day in the month of delivery. In such case the cotton must have been duly inspected and sampled, and the original samples thereof properly prepared in accordance with this subpart must have been delivered to the Marketing Services Office in accordance with all regulations applicable and in readiness for classification not later than 8 p.m. of the second business day preceding such last delivery day.

[48 FR 49212, Oct. 25, 1983]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1942.132 Subsequent loans.

Subsequent loans will be processed under this subpart.
#### BROWN, Appellant, v. BRONSON et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Ac*1107tion by Catherine J. Brown, Individually, etc., against Sara G. Bronson and others. J. A. Straley, for appellant. JT. B. Candler, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Brown v. Bronson, 93 App. Div. 312, 87 N. Y. Supp. 872. Order filed.
§ 1755.27 Borrower contractual obligations. ( a ) *Loan agreement.* As a condition of a loan or loan guaranteed under the RE Act, borrowers are normally required to enter into RUS loan agreements pursuant to which the borrowers agree to use RUS standard contract forms for construction, procurement, engineering services, and architectural services financed in whole or in part by the RUS loan. To comply with the provisions of the loan agreements as implemented by this part, borrowers must use those contract forms identified in the list of telecommunications standard contract forms, set forth in § 1755.30(c) of this part.
( b ) *Compliance.* ( 1 ) If a borrower is required by part 1753 to use a listed contract form, the borrower shall use the listed contract form in the format available from RUS. The forms shall not be retyped, changed, modified, or altered in any manner not specifically authorized in this part or approved by RUS in writing. Any modifications approved by RUS must be clearly shown so as to indicate the difference from the listed contract form.
( 2 ) The borrower may use electronic reproductions of a contract form if the contract documents submitted for RUS approval are exact reproductions of the RUS form and include the following certification by the borrower: I (Insert name of the person.), certify that the attached (Insert name of the contract form.), between (Insert name of the parties.), dated (Insert contract date.) is an exact reproduction of RUS Form (Insert form number), dated (Insert date of RUS form). (Signature) (Title) (Employer's Address)
( c ) *Amendment.* Where a borrower has entered into a contract in the form required by 7 CFR part 1753, no change may be made in the terms of the contract, by amendment, waiver or otherwise, without the prior written approval of RUS.
( d ) *Waiver.* RUS may waive for good cause, on a case-by-case basis, the requirements imposed on a borrower pursuant to this part. Borrowers seeking an RUS waiver must provide RUS with a written request explaining the need for the waiver.
( e ) *Violations.* A failure on the part of the borrower to use listed contracts as prescribed in 7 CFR part 1753 is a violation of the terms of the loan agreement with RUS and RUS may exercise any and all remedies available under the terms of the agreement or otherwise.
[64 FR 6500, Feb. 10, 1999]
Swanson, Brian (OST)

. From:

Sent: To: Subject: Brian, Bruce Anthony <boa@offices4u.com> Friday, August 10, 2012 10:50 PM Swanson, Brian (OST) Skywest to serve Brainerd 

### .13

As a user of the· Brained Regional Airport, I would like to encourage you to chose Skywest as the new carrier. Thankyou. Bruce Anthony Distinguished Engineer IBM Sentfrom myMotorola ATRIXTM4G on AT&T

1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1672
GHOLAMREZA ASLIYALFANI, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD; LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS, Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Amici Curiae. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A28-290-015) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2Roberta Freedman, PEDERSON & FREEDMAN, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Mary Kenney, Barbara Hines, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS, San Antonio, Texas; Claudia Slovinsky, LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIA SLOVINSKY, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Gholamreza Asliyalfani, a native and citizen of Iran, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) decision to deny his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Asliyalfani sought to reopen the proceedings for the purpose of applying for suspension of deportation. However, Asliyalfani did not meet the continuous presence requirement for suspension of deportation because he failed to accrue seven years of continuous physical presence prior to the initiation of deportation proceedings against him. See Appiah v. INS , No. 97-1705, 2000 WL 43717 (4th Cir. Jan. 20, 2000). Therefore, we deny Asliyalfani’s petition for reviewand affirm the decision of the Board. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 15.86 Consolidated or joint hearings.

Two or more proceedings against the same respondent, or against different respondents in which the same or related facts are asserted to constitute noncompliance, may be consolidated for hearing or decision or both by the agency head, if he has the principal responsibility within the Department for the administration of all the laws extending the Federal financial assistance involved. If laws administered by more than one agency head are involved, such officials may by agreement order consolidation for hearing. The Secretary may order proceedings in the Department consolidated for hearing with proceedings in other Federal Departments or agencies, by agreement with such other Departments or agencies. All parties to any proceeding consolidated subsequently to service of the notice of hearing or notice of opportunity to request a hearing shall be promptly served with notice of such consolidation.
|  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |  |  |

  Washington, D.C.

> - Columbia Heights
- Congress Heights
- Ivy City/Trinidad
- North Capitol Area

----
Exhibit 10.12



 





Exhibit 10.12




Summary of Compensation Paid to United Bankshares Inc.’s Directors




     The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of United Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) met on
January 24, 2005, to discuss compensation of the Board of Directors. Prior to the meeting, the
Committee retained AON Consulting to review the compensation of the Board of Directors of the
Company and to compile information regarding director compensation in peer bank holding companies.
The Committee reviewed the report of AON Consulting, and based on this report, the Committee and the Board of Directors
approved the following compensation to the non-management members of the Company’s Board of
Directors for 2005:




	 	•  	Retainer of $500 per month regardless of meeting attendance.
	 
	 	•  	Fee of $1,000 for each of the six (6) scheduled Board meetings attended.
	 
	 	•  	Fee of $1,000 for each committee meeting attended or for each special meeting
of the Board attended.
	 
	 	•  	Retainer of $1,000 per quarter for the Chairman of the Compensation
Committee, Governance & Nominating Committee, and the Lead Director of the

Independent Directors.
	 
	 	•  	Retainer of $1,000 per month for the Chairman of the Audit Committee.




88
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.69  


 
 

SEVENTH AMENDMENT
  TO THE SPHERION CORPORATION
  DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN    
    


        THIS SEVENTH AMENDMENT to the Spherion Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan") is made on this
15th day of October, 2004, by Spherion Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"); 


W I T N E S S E T H:  


        WHEREAS, Article IX of the Plan provides that the Company has the right to amend the Plan at any time; and 


        WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to permit participants to direct that amounts invested in the Deferred Company Stock
Unit Fund on and after October 15, 2004, be invested in other Investment Funds available under the Plan; 


        NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan hereby is amended, effective as of October 15, 2004, as follows: 



        1.     By
adding the following to the end of Section 4.2(e). 



        Notwithstanding
the foregoing or anything in the Plan to the contrary, Participants may direct that amounts first deemed invested in the Deferred Company Stock Unit Fund on or after
October 15, 2004 (including contributions made on or after such date and amounts transferred from other Investment Funds on or after such date) be invested in other Investment Funds.
Participants may not direct that amounts deemed invested in the Deferred Company Stock Unit Fund prior to October 15, 2004, be invested in other Investment Funds. 




        2.     Except
as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Amendment. 




        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to execute this Sixth Amendment on the date first above written. 



	 	 	SPHERION CORPORATION
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  LISA IGLESIAS      

	 	 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President














QuickLinks


SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE SPHERION CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN