alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Glen Canyon Damby Norman Rockwell (1894-1978)Oil on canvas, 51" x 77"Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River Storage Project, northern Arizona.
Glen Canyon Dam in northern Arizona is the primary feature of the Colorado River Storage Project. Water stored behind the 710-foot high dam is used to meet obligations to the states of the Lower Colorado River Basin as outlined in the Colorado River Compact. The water is used for irrigation, power generation, municipal and industrial uses, and fish and wildlife enhancements. In addition, the dam provides a high degree of flood control along the lower Colorado River.

Currently on display at the Glen Canyon Visitors Center.
backPrivacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility | FOIA | Quality of Information | FAQ | NoticesDOI | Recreation.gov | USA.gov
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2015

No. 04-14-00907-CV

IN RE SEGREST SALTWATER RESOURCES, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

On February 23, 2015, relator Segrest Saltwater Resources, LLC, filed a motion to abate 

this mandamus proceeding for sixty days to allow the parties to participate in mediation. The 

motion represents that the real parties in interest are unopposed to the requested relief.

Relator’s motion is GRANTED. This mandamus proceeding is temporarily abated until 

further order of this court. Relator is ORDERED to provide this court with a status report no 

later than April 24, 2015.

It is so ORDERED on February 24, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 14-06-0426-CVA, styled Segrest Saltwater Resources, LLC v. Pyote 

Water Systems, LLC; Pyote Water Systems II, LLC; Pyote Water Systems III, LLC; Pyote Water Solutions, LLC; 

Pyote Well Service, LLC; H.H. "Trip" Wommack III; George J. Wommack; Petro Waste Environmental, LLC; Petro 

Waste Environmental LP; and Josh Haislip, pending in the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas, 

the Honorable Stella Saxon presiding.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00037-CR

DANNY CHARLES MORAN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1369231D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

After review of the reporter’s record of the trial court’s June 15, 2015 

abatement hearing and pursuant to Appellant’s statement on record that he no 

longer wishes to continue this appeal, this court, on its own initiative, suspends

the requirements of rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure, and we 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and SUDDERTH, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 30, 2015
204.7604 Solicitation provision.

Except for supplies or services exempted by DoDI 5000.79, use the provision at 252.204-7024,

Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System, in solicitations for supplies and

services, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial

products and commercial services.

Parent topic: Subpart 204.76 - SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE RISK SYSTEM
§ 501.122 Contents. ( a ) A petition for a stay shall contain a full and complete statement of all facts believed to be pertinent to the act or transaction for which a stay is sought. The facts shall include, but not be limited to, the criteria listed below in § 501.123(b).
( b ) The petitioner may request a conference regarding the application. If the request is not made at the time the application is filed, it must be made as soon thereafter as possible. The request and OFE's determination regarding it will be made in accordance with subpart C of this part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Quintana, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 299]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel E FitzGerald, J), entered on or about April 19, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In adjudicating defendant a level two sex offender, the court properly assessed points under the “forcible compulsion” and “deviate sexual intercourse” categories of the Risk Assessment Guidelines. This determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The grand jury minutes were “reliable hearsay evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), and constituted a proper basis for the court’s findings *(see People v Dort,*18 AD3d 23, 25 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 885 [2005]). We perceive no basis for a discretionary downward departure *(see People v Guaman,*8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J, Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### ROOME, Appellant, v. CONEY ISLAND & B. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1914.)

Action by William J. Roome, Jr., against the Coney Island & Brooklyn Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

In view of the condition of the weather, it cannot be decided that plaintiff was negligent per se in failing to discover the car. But if plaintiff failed to see a car in plain view for over 100 feet, except as the storm intervened, by what rule of law may the defendant, having within the block the paramount right to the track, be deemed negligent for colliding with plaintiff in the middle of the track, where it uncontradictedly appears that the car was run at moderate or slow speed, and the bell sounded before the accident? For the reason that negligence on the part of the defendant is not shown, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 61

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity.

Concentrations of radioactive material which may be released to the general environment in groundwater, surface water, air, soil, plants, or animals must not result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable.
§ 590.312 Oral presentations. ( a ) Any party may file a motion requesting an opportunity to make an oral presentation of views, arguments, including arguments of counsel, and data on any aspect of the proceeding. The motion shall identify the substantial question of fact, law or policy at issue and demonstrate that it is material and relevant to the merits of the proceeding. The party may submit material supporting the existence of substantial issues. The Assistant Secretary or presiding official ordinarily will grant a party's motion for an oral presentation, if the Assistant Secretary or presiding official determines that a substantial question of fact, law, or policy is at issue in the proceeding and illumination of that question will be aided materially by such an oral presentation.
( b ) The Assistant Secretary or presiding official may require parties making oral presentations to file briefs or other documents prior to the oral presentation. The Assistant Secretary or presiding official also may delineate the issues that are to be considered at the oral presentation and place appropriate limitations on the number of intervenors who may participate if two or more intervenors have substantially like interests.
( c ) Oral presentations shall be conducted in an informal manner with the Assistant Secretary or the presiding official and other decisional employees presiding as a panel. The panel may question those parties making an oral presentation. Cross-examination by the parties and other more formal procedures used in trial-type hearings will not be available in oral presentations. The oral presentation may be, but need not be, made by legal counsel.
( d ) Oral presentations shall be recorded, and the transcript shall be made part of the official record of the proceeding and available to the public.
§ 600.231 Real property. ( a ) *Title.* Subject to the obligations and conditions set forth in this section, title to real property acquired under a grant or subgrant will vest upon acquisition in the grantee or subgrantee respectively.
( b ) *Use.* Except as otherwise provided by Federal statutes, real property will be used for the originally authorized purposes as long as needed for that purposes, and the grantee or subgrantee shall not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests.
( c ) *Disposition.* When real property is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the grantee or subgrantee will request disposition instructions from the awarding agency. The instructions will provide for one of the following alternatives: ( 1 ) *Retention of title.* Retain title after compensating the awarding agency. The amount paid to the awarding agency will be computed by applying the awarding agency's percentage of participation in the cost of the original purchase to the fair market value of the property. However, in those situations where a grantee or subgrantee is disposing of real property acquired with grant funds and acquiring replacement real property under the same program, the net proceeds from the disposition may be used as an offset to the cost of the replacement property.
( 2 ) *Sale of property.* Sell the property and compensate the awarding agency. The amount due to the awarding agency will be calculated by applying the awarding agency's percentage of participation in the cost of the original purchase to the proceeds of the sale after deduction of any actual and reasonable selling and fixing-up expenses. If the grant is still active, the net proceeds from sale may be offset against the original cost of the property. When a grantee or subgrantee is directed to sell property, sales procedures shall be followed that provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible return.
( 3 ) *Transfer of title.* Transfer title to the awarding agency or to a third-party designated/approved by the awarding agency. The grantee or subgrantee shall be paid an amount calculated by applying the grantee or subgrantee's percentage of participation in the purchase of the real property to the current fair market value of the property.
#### § 474.5 [Reserved]
1842.7202 Contract clause.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.242–73, NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting, in solicitations and contracts when any of the NASA Form 533 series of reports is required from the contractor.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1842.72—NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting
confidential







ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE





Reference is hereby made to that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2013, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION,
as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent
and Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series COMM 2013-CCRE6 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of
this Agreement, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services and Timothy S. Ryan, Managing Director of Customer
Relationship Management, do hereby certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made
under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.





|                  |  |                  
|----------------- |  | -----------------
|Leslie Hayton     |  | Timothy S. Ryan  
|Managing Director |  | Managing Director
|Wells Fargo Bank  |  | Wells Fargo Bank 





















confidential
§ 54.41 Violations. ( a ) The Commission may obtain an injunction or other court order to prevent a violation of the provisions of the following acts— ( 1 ) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
( 2 ) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended or
( 3 ) A regulation or order issued pursuant to those acts.
( b ) The Commission may obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act— ( 1 ) For violations of the following— ( i ) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( ii ) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act;
( iii ) Any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iv ) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
( 2 ) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Searched for **http://nmb.gov/foia-annual-reports/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://nmb.gov/foia-annual-reports/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/Shell - report - 3 - 8 - 13 - Final.pdf
114 STAT. 802 PUBLIC LAW 106–273—SEPT. 22, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1937:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–820, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 145 (1999): Nov. 19, considered and passed Senate.

Vol. 146 (2000): Sept. 12, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 106–273

106th Congress

An Act

To amend the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act

to provide for sales of electricity by the Bonneville Power Administration to

joint operating entities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Section 5(b) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power

Planning and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 839c(b)) is amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(7) REQUIRED SALE.— ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF A JOINT OPERATING ENTITY.—In

this section, the term ‘joint operating entity’ means an

entity that is lawfully organized under State law as a

public body or cooperative prior to the date of enactment

of this paragraph, and is formed by and whose members

or participants are two or more public bodies or cooperatives, each of which was a customer of the Bonneville

Power Administration on or before January 1, 1999.

‘‘(B) SALE.—Pursuant to paragraph (1), the Administrator shall sell, at wholesale to a joint operating entity,

electric power solely for the purpose of meeting the regional

firm power consumer loads of regional public bodies and

cooperatives that are members of or participants in the

joint operating entity.

‘‘(C) NO RESALE.—A public body or cooperative to which

a joint operating entity sells electric power under subparagraph (B) shall not resell that power except to retail customers of the public body or cooperative or to another

regional member or participant of the same joint operating

entity, or except as otherwise permitted by law.’’.

Approved September 22, 2000.

Sept. 22, 2000

[S. 1937]
# SUBCHAPTER F - SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING

- PART 2035 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 

- PART 2035 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING    - 2035.70   Contract clauses.
  - 2035.71   Broad agency announcements.
#  23.9001 General.

(a) See link to “Vaccination Deviation Flow Chart” at PGI 23.9001. (b) DFARS 252.223-7999 does not apply to contract actions executed in the system for automated simplified acquisitions.

**Parent topic:**SUBPART 23.90 – ENSURING ADEQUATE COVID-19 SAFETY PROTOCOLS FOR FEDERAL CONTRACTORS
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Netlog: the NETL newsletter.**** 
SuDocNumber:E12.15:
ItemNumber:0430-S-02(online)
CGPSystem Number:000597916
 
2006
Mar
 
June
 
Sep
 
Dec
2007
Mar
 
June
 
Sep
2008
Jan
 
Apr
 
Jul
 
Oct
2009
Jan
 
Apr
 
July
 
Oct
2010
Jan
 
Apr
 
July
 
Oct
2011
Jan
 
Apr
 
July
 
Oct
2012
Jan
 
Apr
 
July
 
Oct
2013
Jan
 
Apr
 
July
 
Oct
2014
Jan
 
Apr
 
July
 
 
 **
#### In the Matter of Richard Tibbets, Appellant, v George Meyer, as Personnel Officer of the County of Suffolk, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent that petitioner’s name be removed from two civil service eligibility lists, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 10, 1979, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment áffirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Weinstein, J.,

concurs in the result, with the following memorandum: Petitioner Richard Tibbets had been appointed as a Labor Specialist II with the Suffolk County Department of Labor in 1978. After a period of three months his employment was terminated on the ground of incompetency. *700Subsequently, petitioner qualified for eligibility on two civil service employment lists, one for Labor Specialist II and one for Labor Specialist III. The Suffolk County Department of Labor challenged the eligibility of the petitioner to remain on these open competitive eligibility lists, and was ultimately successful in having his name removed from these lists, on the basis of subdivision 4 of section 50 of the Civil Service Law, which provides, in pertinent part: "Disqualification of applicants or eligibles. The state civil service department and municipal commissions may refuse to examine an applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible * * * (e) who has been dismissed from a permanent position in the public service upon stated written charges of incompetency or misconduct, after an opportunity to answer such charges in writing, or who has resigned from, or whose service has otherwise been terminated in, a permanent or temporary position in the public service, where it is found after appropriate investigation or inquiry that such resignation or termination resulted from his incompetency or misconduct”. Petitioner now challenges the removal of his name from the eligibility lists for Labor Specialist II and Labor Specialist III. On the basis of the unambiguous language of the statute above stated, I am constrained to concur with the majority, which found the removal to be proper. Indeed, in cases such as this one before the court, where a civil servant has been disqualified from the possibility of employment in a position similar or identical to one in which he was earlier found to be incompetent, I can have no quarrel with the operation of this statute. But it seems grossly unfair that the name of a civil servant who has been found to be incompetent in one position could, pursuant to the statute, be removed from eligibility lists for a completely different, entirely unrelated, position. Lack of competency in one position, even if such lack of competency has been confirmed by a hearing, obviously has no automatic bearing on competency in every other civil service job. In my opinion it would be appropriate for the Legislature to amend the statute so as to guard against such a misapplication, which could have a far-reaching and unjust effect on the future employability of an individual.
Exhibit 35.2

[First Republic Bank Logo]

Feb 28, 2015

Servicer Compliance Statement

For SEMT 2012-6 (see Schedule A)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of First Republic Bank (the Servicer), does hereby certify that:



| | (i) | a review of the Servicers activities during the reporting period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 and of its performance under the Agreement (as defined on Schedule A attached hereto) from
the above referenced trust during such period has been made under such officers supervision, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such reporting period.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First Republic BankBy:

/s/ Lionel AntunesName:

Lionel AntunesTitle:

Vice President of Residential LendingDate:

Feb. 28, 2015




---

<for SEMT 2012-6>

SCHEDULE A



| | 1. | Flow Mortgage Loan Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010, between Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation and First Republic Bank, as modified by the Reconstitution Agreement dated
November 30, 2012 (the Agreement).
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nathaniel Cherry, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 4, 1967, affirmed. Defendant’s contention that his guilty plea was induced by the existence or threatened use of the fruits of an alleged illegal search and seizure is not properly before us. “Evidence dehors the record is not admissible in an appellate court for the purpose of reversing a judgment ” *(People*v. *Vignera,*29 A D 2d 657). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.