alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Faulk, Scott (OST)

From: Faulk, Scott (OST)

Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:51 AM

To: 'nissa.pilcher@alaska.gov'; 'john.binder@alaska.gov'; 'Linda.bustamante@alaska.gov'; 

'rich.sewell@alaska.gov'

Cc: 'Janette Stansel'; Bob Bursiel; Ken Leary <KLeary@evertsair.com> 

(KLeary@evertsair.com); 'Adventure'; Accounting; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST)

Subject: EAS at Lake Minchumina and Rampart

Attachments: Everts at Lake Minchumina.pdf; Everts at Rampart.pdf; Wright Air at Lake 

Minchumina.pdf; Warbelow's Rampart EAS Proposal --- 2014.pdf

Greetings All, 

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Lake Minchumina and Rampart, and

give you an opportunity to offer any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. 

 

As you know, by Order 2014-6-8, issued on June 17, 2014, the Department solicited proposals from air carriers 

interested in providing EAS at Lake Minchumina and Rampart for a new term. In response to our request, 

Wright Air Service and Everts Air submitted proposals to serve Lake Minchumina; Warbelow’s Air Ventures 

and Everts Air submitted proposals to serve Rampart. I have attached each air carrier’s proposal for your 

review and I expect them to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime today. I request that you review 

the proposals and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than September 1, 

2014. Please send your comments directly to scott.faulk@dot.gov. Also, please forward this to all relevant 

parties that I have not included on the distribution list. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

Scott Faulk 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-9967
§ 719.3 What contracts are covered by this part? ( a ) Unless excluded under § 719.5, this part covers the following three categories of contracts: ( 1 ) All management and operating contracts;
( 2 ) Non-management and operating cost reimbursement contracts exceeding $100,000,000; and
( 3 ) Non-management and operating contracts exceeding $100,000,000 that include cost reimbursable elements exceeding $10,000,000 (e.g., contracts with both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable line items where the cost-reimbursable line items exceed $10,000,000 or time and materials contracts where the materials portions exceed $10,000,000).
( b ) This part also covers contracts otherwise not covered by paragraph (a) of this section but which contain a clause requiring compliance with this part.
( c ) This part also covers any contract the Department awards directly to retained legal counsel exceeding $100,000.
# EUR-Lex - 31983R3514 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31983R3514

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3514/83 of 13 December 1983 amending Regulations (EEC) No 2191/81 and (EEC) No 2192/81 concerning the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organizations and by the armies and similar forces of the Member States **

*
Official Journal L 351 , 14/12/1983 P. 0013 - 0013 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 29 P. 0148 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 29 P. 0148 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 17 P. 0020 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 17 P. 0020 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3514/83

of 13 December 1983

amending Regulations (EEC) No 2191/81 and (EEC) No 2192/81 concerning the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profitmaking institutions and organizations and by the armies and similar forces of the Member States

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1600/83 (2), and in particular Article 12 (3) thereof,

Whereas the voucher mentioned in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1446/83 (4), is to be valid only from the first day of the calender month; whereas the butter cannot be taken over until after that date; whereas experience of the scheme has shown that it is necessary to put forward that date in order to make it possible for deliveries of butter to be made earlier; whereas the period during which butter can be taken over should therefore be adjusted; whereas this provision also appears in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2192/81 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1446/83; whereas the same amendment should also be made in that Regulation;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 3 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 and Article 3 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2192/81 shall read as follows:

'A voucher shall be valid for the calendar month indicated thereon. Delivery may, however, be made during the period beginning on the 20th day of the preceding month and terminating on the 10th day of the month following the month indicated.'

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 December 1983.

For the Commission

Poul DALSAGER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) OJ No L 163, 22. 6. 1983, p. 56.

(3) OJ No L 213, 1. 8. 1981, p. 20.

(4) OJ No L 146, 4. 6. 1983, p. 19.

(5) OJ No L 213, 1. 8. 1981, p. 24.
#### HARADON v. STANDARD OIL CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 19, 1915.)

Action by William M. Haradon against the Standard Oil Company.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
#### Mary Abbott, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nicholas P. Athans, Deceased, Appellant, v. South Buffalo Railway et al., Respondents.

Motion insofar as it requests additional time to perfect appeal granted and time for filing and serving records and briefs extended to August 7,1969; motion for permission to prosecute appeal as a poor person denied. Memorandum: In the exercise of discretion we have heretofore determined *(Jenks*v. *Murphy,*21 A D 2d 346) that an application such as this should be made to the court in which the action was tried.
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 22

- 1383

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dyqwon D. Brown

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: June 2 8 , 2022 Filed: July 1, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dyqwon Brown received a 96

- month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition

. S ee 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)

. As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for, as relevant here, ineffective assistance of
counsel. An Anders brief questions the enforceability of the plea agreement, the-2- substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the district court

, 1 and counsel’s performance

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The appeal waiver, which is enforceable, covers all but one of these issues.
See United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (revie wing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889

– 92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and volunt arily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). For that one, ineffective assistance of counsel, it is too early
to consider it given the state of the record

. See United States v. Ramirez

- Hernandez

, 449 F.3d 824, 826

– 27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).

Finally, we have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non

- frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
#### In the Matter of Frank G. Giudice et al., Respondents, v. John F. Mulhern, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating appellant as a candidate in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held June 23, 1970 for the Party position of Member of the State Committee, Male, for the 35th Assembly District, Kings County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 10, 1970, which invalidated said designating petitions. Judgment affirmed insofar as it affects appellant, without costs. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
§ 455.151 Notice requesting administrative review. ( a ) Any applicant shall have 20 days from the date of receipt of a decision subject to administrative review under § 455.150 to disapprove its application for a grant award to file a notice requesting administrative review. If an applicant does not timely file such a notice, the decision to disapprove shall become final for DOE.
( b ) A notice requesting administrative review shall be filed with the Support Office Director and shall be accompanied by a written statement containing supporting arguments.
( c ) If the applicant is a State appealing pursuant to paragraph (a) of § 455.150, the State shall have the right to a public hearing. To exercise that right, the State must request such a hearing in the notice filed under paragraph (b) of this section. A public hearing under this section shall be informal and legislative in nature.
( d ) A notice or any other document shall be deemed filed under this subpart upon receipt.
§ 205.308 Filing schedule and annual reports. ( a ) Persons authorized to transmit electric energy from the United States shall promptly file all supplements, notices of succession in ownership or operation, notices of cancellation, and certificates of concurrence. In general, these documents should be filed at least 30 days prior to the effective date of any change.
( b ) A change in the tariff arrangement does not require an amendment to the authorization. However, any entity with an authorization to export electric energy shall file with the ERA, and the appropriate state regulatory agency, a certified copy of any changed rate schedule and terms. Such changes may take effect upon the date of filing of informational data with the ERA.
( c ) Persons receiving authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States shall submit to the ERA, by February 15 each year, a report covering each month of the preceding calendar year detailing the gross amount of kilowatt-hours of energy, by authorized category, received or delivered, and the cost and revenue associated with each category.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control No. 1901-0245) [45 FR 71560, Oct. 28, 1980, as amended at 46 FR 63209, Dec. 31, 1981]
PUBLIC LAW 106–266—SEPT. 22, 2000 114 STAT. 787

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1729:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–587 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

May 3, considered and passed House.

Sept. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–266

106th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet Street in Charlottesville,

Virginia, as the ‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Pamela

B. Gwin Hall’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Pamela

B. Gwin Hall’’.

Approved September 22, 2000.

Sept. 22, 2000

[H.R. 1729]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 710 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 710

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 8, 2006..
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide for uniform food safety warning notification requirements, and for other 
purposes. No further general debate shall be in order. The bill shall be 
considered as read. The bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment shall be in 
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 927 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the eligibility for 

beneficiary travel for veterans seeking treatment or care for military 

sexual trauma in specialized outpatient or residential programs at facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mrs. WALORSKI (for herself and Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

eligibility for beneficiary travel for veterans seeking treatment or care for military sexual trauma in specialized 

outpatient or residential programs at facilities of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 927 IH

1 SECTION 1. BENEFICIARY TRAVEL FOR VETERANS SEEK2 ING TREATMENT OR CARE FOR MILITARY 

3 SEXUAL TRAUMA IN SPECIALIZED OUT4 PATIENT OR RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS OF 

5 THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—Section 111 of title 38, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by adding at the end 

9 the following subparagraph: 

10 ‘‘(H) A veteran whose travel to a specialized 

11 outpatient or residential program at a Department 

12 facility is in connection with treatment or care for 

13 military sexual trauma.’’; and 

14 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub15 section: 

16 ‘‘(h) In this section: 

17 ‘‘(1) The term ‘military sexual trauma’ means 

18 psychological trauma, which in the judgment of a 

19 Department mental health professional, resulted 

20 from a physical assault of a sexual nature, battery 

21 of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which oc22 curred while the veteran was serving on active duty 

23 or active duty for training. 

24 ‘‘(2) The term ‘sexual harassment’ means re25 peated, unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a 

26 sexual nature which is threatening in character.’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 927 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to travel occurring 

3 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 431.294 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy consumption of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines. ( a ) *Scope.* This section provides test procedures for measuring, pursuant to EPCA, the energy consumption of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
( b ) *Testing and Calculations.* Determine the daily energy consumption of each covered refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine by conducting the appropriate test procedure set forth in appendix A or B to this subpart.
[71 FR 71375, Dec. 8, 2006, as amended at 80 FR 45793, July 31, 2015]
#### MOREY et al. v. SCHUSTER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Norris Morey and others against Caspar Schuster and others.

PER CURIAM.

Motion of defendant Chamberlain for modification of order of reversal entered December 23, 1913 (159 App. Div. 602, 145 N. Y. Supp. 258), so as to provide that he be excepted from the operation thereof and in no manner affected thereby, denied, without costs, upon the ground that the record on appeal does not show that the defendant Chamberlain was entitled to be heard thereon in this court. If notice of motion for judgment on the pleadings made at Special Term should have been given to him, it does not appear that his rights have been prejudiced or in any way affected by the result of that application. See, also, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1101.
#### § 871.4 Limitation on redelegation of authority.

The authority delegated in this part may not be redelegated without the prior approval of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

[42 FR 48332, Sept. 23, 1977, as amended at 71 FR 68734, Nov. 28, 2006]
#### § 1125.425 When do I check to see if a person is excluded or disqualified?

In addition to the four instances identified in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.425, you as a DoD Component official must check to see if a person is excluded or disqualified before you obligate additional funding (*e.g.*, through an incremental funding action) for a pre-existing grant or cooperative agreement with an institution of higher education, as provided in 32 CFR 22.520(e)(5).
From: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE) [mailto:Carlos.Gaytan@ge.com] 

Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:19 PM 

To: Richard Parker; Wes Patterson; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; adelaski@standardsasap.org; 

ahofmann@publicpower.org; Aris Marantan; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; august.esch@gmail.com; 

BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Brian Coffey; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; 

cabolduc@lbl.gov; Caitlin Johnson; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneiderelectric.com; charlied@uss.org; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; Cla_Silcox@nema.org; 

cstephens@neea.org; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; dave.millure@metglas.com; DYoung@energysolution.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; 

gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; James.Lass@cleco.com; 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.com; Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; 

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; jhodge@howard-ind.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov; 

jmauer@standardsasap.org; Joh_Caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; jrossetti@mlgw.org; 

kcoughlin@lbl.gov; kwinder@mleainc.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; 

mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; Matthew Nardotti; mhyland@appanet.org; Michael Rivest; 

mwaltner@nrdc.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; phil@pjharter.com; phopkinson@hvolt.com; 

pkumar@publicpower.org; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; 

rick.anderson@faypwc.com; robert.saint@nreca.coop; rroy@nrdc.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; 

snadel@aceee.org; srosenstock@eei.org; tballo@earthjustice.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; 

thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Input for Steel Price Sensitivity Tool 

Richard Parker, DOE Representatives, and MV Working Group Members,

Prolec GE is recommending that the proposed steel price sensitivity tool’s price range be expanded from

the current proposal of +/‐25% to at least +/‐50%.  Our analysis of the range of price changes in core

materials for Distribution Transformer price parity at increased draft Efficiency Levels (dEL’s) shows a

much greater range of possible core material price variation.  A summary of our findings is in the

attached file.

Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation.

Sincerely,

Carlos Gaytan

Prolec GE