alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  | **About Portable 			Document Format Files**Recent 										Additions | Contact 										Us | 										Print 										VersionEPA Home >  About Portable 					Document Format Files
  |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
OPEN-FILE REPORT 98-464
NITED STATI

ui in
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PEATE 1 OREGON
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY —_

>

\

j

ope tt

et =~ —

| * c yy am]

k= ert
cahte ) 4

ims”

J o£ f 4 Une

US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1974—Sa5—367/1 ‘Seale 1:1.000,000 ; OREGON
2 » <1
Senand : ri ri Py a
This map is preliminary and has ANATION
not been reviewed for conformity EE
with U.S: Geological survey
editorial standards or with the DMA DMEA OME
North American Code.
Applications A fo} Q
Contracts a e =
Certifed Contracts a e a
15

Numbers near property symbols are keyed
to map numbers in Table 1 of text

MAP OF OREGON THAT SHOWS LOCATION OF MINING PROPERTIES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE DMA, DMEA, OR OME MINERAL EXPLORATION PROGRAMS
By
THOR H. KIILSGAARD

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1998
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2011 - 0565 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM280AD

215 -A543 --- 5/19/10 215 -A4424, R1 --- 5/18/10 215 - 4424 --- 1/25/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administrat ion

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0264

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JEREMY CORD WOODS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Jeremy Cord Woods has filed

within which to file his opening brief.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion

filed on or before October 15, 2020.

DATED this day ofJune, 2020.

a Motion for a

is GRANTED.

For the Court,

By

FILED

JUN 2 9 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Suprerne Court

Ststp of Montana

ORDER

90-day Extension of Time

Appellant's brief shall be

06/29/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0264
#### § 3256.110 What policies and procedures must I follow?

(a) *General.* You must follow the policies and procedures specified in the applicable sections of the OMB guidance in subparts A through F of [2 CFR part 182](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/part-182), as implemented by this part.

(b) *Specific sections of OMB guidance that this part supplements.* In implementing the guidance in [2 CFR part 182](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/part-182), this part supplements four sections of that guidance, as shown in the following table. For each of those sections, you must follow the policies and procedures in the OMB guidance, as supplemented by this part.

| Section of OMB guidance | Section in this part where supplemented | What the supplementation clarifies |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) [2 CFR 182.225(a)](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/section-182.225#p-182.225(a)) | § 3256.200 | Whom in the NEA a recipient other than an individual must notify if an employee is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute in the workplace. |
| (2) [2 CFR 182.300(b)](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/section-182.300#p-182.300(b)) | § 3256.300 | Whom in the NEA a recipient who is an individual must notify if he or she is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity. |
| (3) [2 CFR 182.500](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/section-182.500) | § 3256.500 | Who in the NEA is authorized to determine that a recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of [2 CFR part 182](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/part-182), as implemented by this part. |
| (4) [2 CFR 182.505](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/section-182.505) | § 3256.505 | Who in the NEA is authorized to determine that a recipient who is an individual is in violation of the requirements of [2 CFR part 182](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/part-182), as implemented by this part. |

(c) *Sections of the OMB guidance that this part does not supplement.* For any section of OMB guidance in subparts A through F of [2 CFR part 182](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/part-182) that is not listed in [paragraph (b)](/on/2024-09-17/title-2/section-3256.110#p-3256.110(b)) of this section, the NEA's policies and procedures are the same as those in the OMB guidance.
§ 400.2 Conflict of interest. ( a ) Each USDA awarding agency must establish conflict of interest policies for its Federal awards.
( b ) Non-Federal entities must disclose in writing any potential conflicts of interest to the USDA awarding agency or pass-through entity. ( 1 ) The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the performance of its employees in the selection, award and administration of Federal awards. No employee, officer or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a non-Federal entity considered for a Federal award. The non-Federal entity may set standards for situations in which the financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. The standards of conduct must provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the non-Federal entity.
( 2 ) If the non-Federal entity has a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization that is not a state, local government, or Indian tribe, the non-Federal entity must also maintain written standards of conduct covering organizational conflicts of interest. Organizational conflicts of interest means that because of the relationships with a parent company, affiliate, or subsidiary organization, is unable or appears to be unable to be impartial in conducting a Federal award action involving a related organization.
# EUR-Lex - 31974D0361 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31974D0361

**74/361/EEC: Commission Decision of 13 June 1974 exempting the United Kingdom from applying to certain species the Council Directive of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 196 , 19/07/1974 P. 0019 - 0019 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 13 June 1974 exempting the United Kingdom from applying to certain species the Council Directive of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (Only the English text is authentic) (74/361/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;

Having regard to the Council Directive of 14 June 1966 (1) on the marketing of cereal seed, as last amended by the Council Directive of 11 December 1973 (2), and in particular Article 23a thereof;

Having regard to the request from the United Kingdom;

Whereas rice and canary grass are not normally cultivated in the United Kingdom ; whereas the seeds of these species are not propagated or marketed there;

Whereas these conditions have held for sometime, it is appropriate to exempt the United Kingdom from applying the provisions of this Directive to the species in question;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the Opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The United Kingdom is exempt from applying the Council Directive of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed, with the exception of the provisions of Article 14 (1) to the species listed below: (a) Oryza sativa L. - rice;

(b) Phalaris canariensis L. - canary grass.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 1974.

For the Commission

The President

François-Xavier ORTOLI (1)OJ No 125, 11.7.1966, p. 2309/66. (2)OJ No L 356, 27.12.1973, p. 79.
Third Department,

June, 1969

(June *4,*1969) *

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Horace McNeill, Arthur Waszcyszuk, Karl Zapp, Arthur Boyle, Jose Colon, Thomas Samuels, Anthony De Lestre and Arthur Joyner, Respondents, v. James J. Morrow, as Director of Woodbourne Rehabilitation Center, Appellant.

*

 Not published with other decisions of June, 1969, 32 A D 2d 745. [Rep.

Motion for stay granted, without costs, and without prejudice to a motion by respondents to vacate the stay in the event appellant shall fail to file, on or before June 16, 1969, records and briefs and be ready for argument June 18, 1969. Counsel assigned at Special Term assigned to represent respondents upon these appeals pursuant to section 35 of the Judiciary Law. Gibson, P. J., HerHhy, Staley, Jr.,- Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 18, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 18, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0218. CITY OF MORROW, GEORGIA v. QUANTUM NATIONAL BANK.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2015CV2505
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-1506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

ALVIN JACKSON,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Lynch, Circuit Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Howard, Circuit Judge.

Holly T. Smith for appellant.

Margaret D. McGaughey, Appellate Chief, with whom Paula D.

Silsby, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

June 2, 2005
1In Shepard, the Supreme Court considered whether the

defendant's prior burglary conviction constituted a "violent

felony" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), a provision of the Armed

Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The § 924(e)(1) definition of "violent

felony" is "the same in all material respects" as the U.S.S.G. §

4B1.1 definition of a "crime of violence." United States v. Bell,

966 F.2d 703, 704 (1st Cir. 1992). Given the similarity, "we look

generally to cases pertaining to either provision 'to elucidate the

nature of the categorical inquiry.'" United States v. Delgado, 288

F.3d 49, 53 n.5 (1st Cir. 2002).

-2-

CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. The defendant appeals

from his sentence, arguing, inter alia, that the sentencing court

erroneously relied on police reports in determining whether he pled

guilty to a prior "crime of violence" qualifying for sentencing

enhancement under the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

This appeal was briefed and argued shortly before the Supreme Court

handed down its decision in Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct.

1254 (2005), holding that a sentencing court may not look to police

reports for this purpose.1 Recognizing that a decision in Shepard

was imminent and would be relevant, this court withheld any

disposition pending the issuance of Shepard. Now that that case

has been decided, we vacate the district court's sentence and

remand to it for resentencing in light of Shepard.

So ordered.
From: Barry.Hammer@faa.gov [ mailto:Barry.Hammer@faa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10: 12 AM To: Maguire, Russ Cc: Willenborg, Christopher (DOT); Klay, Tracy (DOT) Subject: Request for Review ofSub-Lease Assignment Interest - BEH, LLC Russ, I've reviewed the information you provided with your October 20, 2012 letter regarding the assignment, assumption, and amendment ofa Swift Aviation, Inc. lease to Boston Executive Helicopters LLC. Firstly, it's importantto note that our review ofthe lease is performed as a courtesy and while we try to identifY potential compliance issues, our review can not protectthe airport from any compliance violations that may result due to the terms ofthis lease. While I don't see any glaring problems with most ofthe terms and conditions ofthe lease provided in Tab B, thejustification for the 39 yearterm is not sufficient. The FAA allows sponsors to enter into long-term lease agreements (not to exceed 50-years) provided longer terms are reasonably necessary to amortize a tenant's investment. The Patrick J. O'Malley letter dated September 6, 2012 and provided in Tab E identifies a reasonable depreciation ofthe tenant's anticipated improvements to the leased parcel, however,justification for a 39-yearterm would require an amortization schedule with reasonable rates and payments. Here's an excerpt from the FAA's Compliance Manual regarding reasonable terms: "Most tenant ground leases of30 to 35 years are sufficient to retire a tenant's initial financing and provide a reasonable return for the tenant's development ofmajor facilities." Certainlythis statement provides for some subjectivity with respectto reasonable terms and major facilities, however by requiring an amortization schedule with longer leases the airport will be able to betterjustifY the term. Please don't hesitate to call or email with any questions. Respectfully, BarryJ. Hammer, P.E. FAA Airports Division 12 New England Executive Park
§ 111.117 What quality control operations are required for equipment, instruments, and controls? Quality control operations for equipment, instruments, and controls must include: ( a ) Reviewing and approving all processes for calibrating instruments and controls;
( b ) Periodically reviewing all records for calibration of instruments and controls;
( c ) Periodically reviewing all records for calibrations, inspections, and checks of automated, mechanical, or electronic equipment; and
( d ) Reviewing and approving controls to ensure that automated, mechanical, or electronic equipment functions in accordance with its intended use.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3311]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12027 and <greek-i>12028]


Florida Disaster <greek-i>FL-00050

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Florida dated 02/04/2010.
    Incident: Tornadoes, severe storms, and flooding.
    Incident Period: 01/21/2010.
    Effective Date: 02/04/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/05/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/04/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Bradford.
Contiguous Counties:
    Florida: Alachua, Baker, Clay, Putnam, Union.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      5.250
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.625
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.625
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12027 C 
and for economic injury is 12028 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is Florida.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-3311 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Robert and Patricia 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 12, 2014

No. 04-14-00083-CV

Mike and Geri JONES,

Appellants

v.

Robert and Patricia ZEARFOSS,

Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-00986-CV-A

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Appellant's 

brief is due on or before May 12, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.2




                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period
          ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.


Date:  November 14, 2003.


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
Filed: November 5, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7871

(CA-97-159-5-21)

ALLEN POWERSTEIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; M. E. RAY, Warden;

M. RICHER, Associate Warden; KAPUSTA, Camp

Administrator; C. CRAWFORD, Captain; R. MOORE,

Unit Manager; M. CAMPBELL, Unit Manager; J.

TUDOR, Lieutenant; ALSTON, Case Manager, VAN

DIVER, Counselor; THREE UNKNOWN, UNIDENTIFIED

INMATES,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed October 7, 1998, as

follows:

On the cover sheet, section 2, lines 4-5 -- "J. TUDOR, Lieutenant; ALSTON, Case Manager" are added to correct the caption.

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7871

ALLEN POWERSTEIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; M. E. RAY, Warden;

M. RICHER, Associate Warden; KAPUSTA, Camp

Administrator; C. CRAWFORD, Captain; R. MOORE,

Unit Manager; M. CAMPBELL, Unit Manager; J.

TUDOR, Lieutenant; ALSTON, Case Manager, VAN

DIVER, Counselor; THREE UNKNOWN, UNIDENTIFIED

INMATES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-159-5-21)

Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 7, 1998

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Powerstein, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although Powerstein’s claim was filed under S 1983, the

district court properly construed it as one under Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971).

4

PER CURIAM:

Allen Powerstein appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. S 1983 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Powerstein v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-97-

159-5-21 (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 1997). 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MURDOCK RAEFORD SHERROD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. ( 5:18

- cr - 00067

- BR

- 1 )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Murdock Raeford Sherrod , Appellant Pro Se

. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Murdock Raeford Sherrod, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3 582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discre tion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. The district court denied Sherrod’s motion after assessing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553( a) factors and sufficiently explained its reasons for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district cou rt’s order. We deny Sherrod’s motion for appointment of counsel and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED