alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 73123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29864]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCO-921000-L13200000-EL0000-LVELC10CC770; COC-74219]


Notice of Correction to Notice of Availability of the 
Environmental Assessment and Notice of Public Hearing for the Sage 
Creek Holdings, LLC, Federal Coal Lease Application, COC-74219

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is correcting the Notice 
of Availability of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Notice of 
Public Hearing for the Sage Creek Holdings, LLC, Federal Coal Lease 
Application, COC-74219 published in the Federal Register on August 13, 
2010 [75 FR 49512]. The BLM incorrectly stated that the EA was complete 
and available for release. The BLM subsequently determined that 
additional information should have been included in the cumulative 
impact section of the EA. The BLM will be issuing a revised EA, which 
will be available for a 30-day comment period upon completion. After 
the end of the comment period, the BLM will hold a public hearing on 
the EA, the fair market value and the maximum economic recovery of the 
proposed leased tract.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt M. Barton, Land Law Examiner, 
2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215 at (303) 239-3714, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#69221c1b1d362b081b1d0607290b0504470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d76484f49627f5c4f4952537d5f5150135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>, or Jennifer Maiolo, Mining Engineer, 455 Emerson 
Street, Craig, CO 81625 at 970-826-5077, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8f2ddd6d6d1deddcae7f5d9d1d7d4d7f8dad4d596dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="165c7378787f707364495b777f797a7956747a7b38717960">[email protected]</span></a>.

Helen M. Hankins,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-29864 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 301.76-2 Regulated articles for Asian citrus psyllid and citrus greening. ( a ) *List of regulated articles.* The Administrator has determined that certain articles present a risk of spreading Asian citrus psyllid and/or citrus greening. A list of all such regulated articles is located at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/citrus/acp* and *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/citrus/citrus-greening ,* respectively. The list indicates whether the article is a regulated article for both citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid, or just one of these two pests. Lists of all regulated articles may also be obtained by request from any local Plant Protection and Quarantine office; local offices are listed in telephone directories and on the internet at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/sphd .*
( b ) *Normal process for designating additional regulated articles.* ( 1 ) If the Administrator determines that an article not already listed at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/citrus/acpand/* or *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/citrus/citrus-greeningpresentsariskofspreadingAsiancitruspsyllidand/* or citrus greening, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register proposing to designate the article as a regulated article for either or both of these pests. The notice will provide the basis for this determination, and will request public comment.
( 2 ) If no comments are received on the notice, or if the comments do not change the Administrator's determination, APHIS will publish a second notice in the Federal Register designating the article as a regulated article and listing it.
( c ) *Immediate designation of regulated articles.* An inspector may designate any other product, article, or means of conveyance as a regulated article for Asian citrus psyllid and/or citrus greening, if the inspector determines that it presents a risk of spreading these pests, and after the inspector provides written notification to the person in possession of the product, article, or means of conveyance that it is subject to the restrictions of this subpart.
( d ) *Exemption after certain methods of processing.* The Administrator may determine that certain methods of processing render regulated articles such that they no longer present a risk of spreading Asian citrus psyllid or citrus greening. Such methods are found at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/citrus .* Articles processed in such a manner are exempt from the regulations in this subpart.
[87 FR 80010, Dec. 29, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 73082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29909]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 2010-0058]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.

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

    Form Title: Application for Approved Finance Provider (EIB 10-06).
SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The Application for Approved Finance Provider will be used to 
determine if the finance provider has the financial strength and 
administrative staff to originate, administer, collect, and if needed, 
restructure international loans. This application will also improve Ex-
Im Bank' s compliance with the Open Government initiative by providing 
transparency into specific information used to determine if an 
applicant is qualified to use our loan guarantee programs. Export-
Import Bank potential finance providers will be able to submit this 
form on paper. In the future, we will consider allowing the submission 
of this information electronically.
    This application can be viewed at http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB10_06.pfd.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 28, 2011 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to Jeffrey Abramson, Export-Import Bank 
of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Titles and Form Number: EIB 10-06 
Application for Approved Finance Provider.
    OMB Number: 3048-xxxx.
    Type of Review: New.
    Need and Use: The Application for Approved Finance Provider will be 
used to determine the financial and administrative capabilities of a 
financial provider who will arrange, fund and administer international 
loans.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 50.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 3 hours.
    Government Annual Burden Hours 8 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-29909 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
1

EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V

Submittal Date May 13, 2014

District Name Ventura County APCD

Date Reviewed July 8, 2014

EPA Reviewer Arnold Lazarus

Key:

C = Complete

I = Incomplete

N/A = Not Applicable To Rule

O = Material Missing

N/S = None Submitted

 

RULE #: 23 74.31

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1)

(a) Submittal letter from Governor/designee C C

(b) Evidence of adoption C C

(c) State/District legal authority to adopt C C

(d1) Copy of actual rule/plan C C

(d2) Rule changes indicated by underline/cross-out C N/A

(e) Proof that action met procedural requirements C C

(f) Copy of public notice C C

(g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice C C

(h) Public comments & agency response C C

 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

(a) Regulated pollutants identified C C

(b) Affected sources & attainment status identified C C

(c) Rule/plan emissions impact N/A C

(d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration N/A N/A

(e) Modeling support as appropriate N/A N/A

(f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions N/A C

(g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements C C

(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies C C

(i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy N/A N/A

OVERALL COMPLETENESS C C

Notes:: 
2
#### LLJBJ Partnership, Respondent, v Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 529]

In an action to recover damages for breach of a title insurance policy and for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred in prosecuting the instant action and an underlying action entitled *Flandorffer v Peter,*commenced in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under index No. 26519/02, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated December 13, 2004, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for partial summary judgment determining that it is obligated to defend the plaintiff in the underlying action, and to pay attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred in that action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The policy of title insurance at issue obligated the defendant *958title company to defend, the plaintiff and pay its attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in an underlying action because the claimed defect in title arose from the rights of a person whose interest appeared in the chain of title, and who was not specifically excepted from coverage under the terms of the policy *(see Scaglione v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co.,*303 AD2d 671 [2003]; *Herbil Holding Co. v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co.,*183 AD2d 219, 226-227 [1992]). In response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing, the defendant title company failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defects in the chain of title were specifically excluded from coverage under the terms of the title insurance policy *(see Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co.,*64 NY2d 304, 310 [1984]; *Throgs Neck Bagels v GA Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*241 AD2d 66 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, determining that the defendant title company must defend the plaintiff and pay its attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in connection with that action. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3355

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Aaron Gonzalez, also known as Aaron *

Elizondo, also known as Aaron * [UNPUBLISHED]

Martinez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2004

Filed: April 12, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Gonzalez (Gonzalez) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pled guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846. Gonzalez argues that the two felony convictions upon which the court relied

to classify him as a career offender did not qualify as convictions under U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1(a), because the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services had issued
2

Gonzalez’s reliance on United States v. Gallaher, 275 F.3d 784 (9th Cir.

2001), is misplaced. In Gallaher, the defendant was convicted of being a felon in

possession of ammunition. Moreover, the holding was based on the plain language

of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).

-2-

certificates for both convictions that showed he had been “discharged” and “restored

all [his] civil rights as provided by law.” In support of this argument, Gonzalez

analogizes his case to United States v. Gallaher, 275 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2001), where

a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that (1) if a state had

restored the defendant’s civil rights with respect to a prior conviction by issuance of

a certificate, and (2) the certificate did not expressly contain a restriction pertaining

to firearms, the prior conviction may not be used as a predicate offense under the

Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924.2

 Here, even if this court were to agree

with Gonzalez that Gallagher applies, Gonzalez’s argument fails because both

certificates on Gonzalez included the following disclaimer: “The issuance of this

Certificate of Discharge does not restore to the above captioned individual his/her

right to bear arms.” We conclude that a state certificate which merely reinstates a

former prisoner’s civil rights does not prevent the conviction from being counted

under section 4B1.1(a). See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.2 n.3, 4A1.2 n.10. Accordingly, we

affirm.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of Jerome M., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 24, 1979, which, after a fact-finding determination, adjudged that appellant was a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation. Order reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition dismissed. Appellant’s guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
27.404-6 Inspection of data at the

contractor’s facility.

Contracting officers may obtain the right to inspect data at the contractor’s facility by use of the

clause at 52.227-14 with its Alternate V, which adds paragraph (j) to provide that right. Agencies

may also adopt Alternate V for general use. The data subject to inspection may be data withheld or

withholdable under paragraph (g)(1) of the clause. Inspection may be made by the contracting

officer or designee (including nongovernmental personnel under the same conditions as the

contracting officer) for the purpose of verifying a contractor’s assertion regarding the limited rights

or restricted rights status of the data, or for evaluating work performance under the contract. This

right may be exercised up to 3 years after acceptance of all items to be delivered under the contract.

The contract may specify data items that are not subject to inspection under paragraph (j) of the

Alternate. If the contractor demonstrates to the contracting officer that there would be a possible

conflict of interest if inspection were made by a particular representative, the contracting officer

shall designate an alternate representative.

Parent topic: 27.404 Basic rights in data clause.
Order filed, December 30, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00983-CV

____________

KASE KERN, Appellant

V.

STONE MOVES AND OMEGA PACIFIC, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-15108

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due December 20, 2019. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cantrece Addison, the court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell and Poissant.
(April 24, 1969)

#### Leroy Greene, Appellant, v. America Greene, Respondent.

Order of the Family -Court entered December 20, 1967 unanimously modified on the law and the -facts by vacating that portion which restricts respondent’s visitation rights, without costs or disbursements. The parties were married in 1960. There 'are two issue of the marriage, seven and eight years of age. The parties were divorced by decree entered in New York Supreme -Court June 13, 1967. That decree makes provision for custody of the minor children and for the father’s (appellant herein) visitation rights. The Family Court has jurisdiction to determine custody of minors only when such jurisdiction is referred to it by the Supreme Court (N. Y. Const., ,art. VI, § 13, subd. a, par. [2]; subd. e; Family Ct. Act., § 115, subd. [,b].) Coneededly the Supreme -Court did not refer the issue of visitation rights to the Family Court. It is therefore clear that it did not have jurisdiction to change the father’s visitation rights. The proper and only forum to petition for such a change, if warranted, is the 'Supreme Court. Concur—--Stevens, P. J., Tilzer, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 13, 2010.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

                    1.                     *Marc Jonathan Foulkrod,*                     Moorpark, California; to acquire additional voting shares of Mission Valley Bancorp, Sun Valley, California, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Mission Valley Bank, Sun Valley, California.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 23, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-29998 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 84 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 6
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:01cr22-RH/AK

BILLY JOE BUCHANAN,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 204), and the objections thereto (document 209). I

have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion to vacate, as amended (document 186), is

DENIED. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2008.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:01-cr-00022-RS-LB Document 210 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 9, 2006
    
    /s/ Robert M. Cashill

Robert M. CashillPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 9, 2006
    
    /s/ Domenick A. Cama

Domenick A. CamaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
§ 4279.279 Transfer of Lenders. ( a ) The Agency may approve the substitution of a new eligible Lender in place of a former Lender who has been issued an outstanding Conditional Commitment when the Loan Note Guarantee has not yet been issued provided that there are no changes in the: ( 1 ) Borrower's ownership or control, loan purposes, or scope of Project;
( 2 ) Loan terms and conditions in the Conditional Commitment; and
( 3 ) Loan Agreement.
( b ) The Agency must determine that the new Lender is eligible in accordance with § 4279.208 prior to approving the substitution. The original Lender must provide the Agency with a letter stating the reasons it no longer desires to be a Lender for the Project. The substituted Lender must execute a new part B of Form 4279-1 and Lender's Agreement (unless a valid Lender's Agreement with the Agency already exists), and must complete a new Lender's analysis in accordance with § 4279.215. The new Lender may also be required to provide other updated application items outlined in § 4279.261(k).