alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Geology and availability of ground water in the northern part of the White Sands Missile Range and vicinity, New Mexico

By: J. E. Weir

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1801

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2015414EN.01002801.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Council v Simpson

(Case T-130/14) (1)

1

((Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Advancement in grade - Classification in grade - Decision not to award the person concerned grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Distortion of the evidence))

(2015/C 414/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F-142/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:201), and seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Simpson

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F-142/11, ECR, EU:F:2013:201), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused the request of Mr Erik Simpson which sought an upgrade to grade AD 9 on the ground that he had passed Competition EPSO/AD/113/07 and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all the costs (paragraphs 1 and 3 of the operative part of that judgment); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F-142/11, ECR, EU:F:2013:201), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused the request of Mr Erik Simpson which sought an upgrade to grade AD 9 on the ground that he had passed Competition EPSO/AD/113/07 and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all the costs (paragraphs 1 and 3 of the operative part of that judgment);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

1

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** Sitting by designation from the District of Arizona.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DERRICK LEE BILLUPS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

A. RAMIREZ; J. HILLER; COLLIER;

GREENLY,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-16309

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00062-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding **

Submitted August 10, 2010 *** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Derrick Billups, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment and order denying his motion to reconsider summary

FILED

AUG 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16309

judgment for Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment, Lovell v.

Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), and for abuse of discretion a denial

of a motion to reconsider, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

Billups does not challenge in his opening brief the district court’s conclusion

that the use of force was not excessive, and therefore waives this issue on appeal. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Billups’ motion to

reconsider. Billups did not explain why he was challenging for the first time Dr.

Douglass’s and Dr. Lee’s medical reports nor why he failed to offer Dr. Flynn’s

medical report during the summary judgment proceedings. See ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d at 1263.

Finally, we do not consider the evidence attached to Billups’s “Motion to

Admission of Valid Medical Record” because this evidence was not before the

district court. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.

1988). We deny the motion.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015089EN.01000701.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/7

---

Action brought on 22 December 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-601/14)

(2015/C 089/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to guarantee the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of all violent intentional crimes committed in its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to guarantee the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of all violent intentional crimes committed in its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC (1);

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2004/80/EC institutes a system of cooperation between the authorities of the Member States to facilitate the access of victims of crime throughout the European Union to appropriate compensation in cross-border situations. The system operates on the basis of Member States’ schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories. To ensure that system of cooperation is fully operational, Article 12(2) of that directive requires the Member States to have or to introduce a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims. That obligation must be understood as referring to all violent intentional crimes and not as referring to only some of them.

Italian law makes provision for a national scheme on compensation to crime victims which consists of a series of special laws on compensation for certain violent intentional crimes, but does not make provision for a general compensation scheme which covers victims of all crimes identified and categorised by the Italian Penal Code as violent intentional crimes. In particular, Italian law does not provide a scheme on compensation for violent intentional crimes which are forms of ‘common crime’ not covered by those special laws.

Consequently, it must be stated that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4587]



[[Page 10293]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism, Initial Review Group Neuroscience Review Subcommittee.
    Date: June 7-8, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Beata Buzas, PhD. Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National 
Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 2081, Rockville, MD 
20852. 301-443-0800. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#442626313e25370429252d286a2a2d2c6a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6d6d7a756e7c4f626e66632161666721686079">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: February 26, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-4587 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7775 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7775

To prohibit the procurement of certain items containing perfluorooctane 
 sulfonate (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and prioritize the 
              procurement of products not containing PFAS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2024

 Mr. Lawler (for himself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Posey, Mr. Pappas, Ms. 
  Perez, Ms. Porter, and Ms. Stevens) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the procurement of certain items containing perfluorooctane 
 sulfonate (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and prioritize the 
              procurement of products not containing PFAS.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``PFAS-Free Procurement Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN ITEMS CONTAINING 
              PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONATE (PFOS) OR PERFLUOROOCTANOIC 
              ACID (PFOA).

    Beginning on October 1, 2025, the head of an executive agency may 
not enter into a new contract for the procurement of a covered item 
that contains perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic 
acid (PFOA).

SEC. 3. PRIORITY PROCUREMENT OF PRODUCTS NOT CONTAINING PFAS.

    The head of an executive agency shall prioritize the procurement of 
covered items, where available and practicable, that do not contain 
harmful perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Executive agency defined.--The term ``executive 
        agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 133 of title 
        41, United States Code.
            (2) Covered items.--The term ``covered items'' means--
                    (A) nonstick cookware and cooking utensils; and
                    (B) furniture, carpets, and rugs treated with 
                stain-resistant coatings.
                                 <all>
```
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0193**
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.21

                                TENANCY AGREEMENT

Landlord: Lee Shu Kwan    (Hereunder called Party A)

Tenant: Kwanasia Electronics Co. Ltd.    (Hereunder called Party B)

Both parties agreed to set up the following terms to comply with:

(1)   Party A will lease his property situates at Room 402, Block A, To Fa
      Court, NanShan District, Shenzhen to Party B. Both parties agreed the
      monthly rental will be HONG KONG DOLLARS TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (HKD
      2,500.00). The rental period is two years, starting from October 1, 2001
      to September 30, 2003. Both parties agreed not to terminate the contract
      within the tenancy period. Otherwise, either party should pay the other
      the rental based on the balance of the tenancy period.

(2)   During the tenancy period, both parties are not allowed to sublet or
      transfer the tenancy to the third party. Regarding the renewal of the
      tenancy agreement, it will be effective only if both parties sign a new,
      written tenancy agreement one month before the expiry date.

(3)   The rental should be paid in advance and should not delayed for whatever
      reason.

(4)   When Party B moves out, he should move out all the furniture within the
      tenancy period so as to clear up the procedures.

(5)   Party B is responsible to pay the rates, property tax, land tax and all
      other expenses for the property.

(6)   The property is for dormitory use only. Party B is not allowed to store
      illegal goods or perform illegal acts in the property.


<PAGE>

(7)   Party B receives one set of keys for the property from Party A. When Party
      B moves out, he must return all the keys to the landlord. If Party B had
      lost any key, he should make the same and cannot dispute.

(8)   This tenancy agreement is in duplicate. Both parties are willing to comply
      with. Each party keeps one copy for evidence.


                  Party A:  Lee Shu Kwan

The Parties:
                  Party B:  Kwanasia Electronics Co. Ltd.

                                                   October 1, 2001
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Smart-tek Solutions,
Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10KT for the six month period ending December 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and
belief:

(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Brian BonarBrian BonarChief Executive
Officer, President and Director

April 15, 2011

---
SERVED: October 21, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CHEMSYSTEMS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. F AA-2012 - 0911 

NOTICE 

Ira Leibowitz, Attorney-Advisor retired on September 30, 2013. 

All future communications should be directed to the undersigned at: 

Richard C. Goodwin, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, Attn: Room E11-310 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(Richard. Goodwin@dot. gov) 

Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant (202) 

366-5121 (Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov) 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST-BY US. MAIL & FAX 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Nancy Meikle, President 

ChemSystems, Inc., Respondent 

1 01 01 Genard Road 

Houston, TX 77041 

Robert Fling, Respondent's Counsel 

S. Robert Fling, PLLC. 

P.O. Box 411, Katy, TX 77492 

5518 Fifth Street, Suite C 

Katy, TX 77493 

TEL: 281-391-2003 

FAX: 281-727-0082 

Courtney Adolph, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7128 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2 

\ 
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FPC(: 202-366-7536 

3
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 March 2010, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.

                    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our                     *Web site: http://www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by e-mailing                     *staff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated: February 24, 2010 in Washington DC.

Thomas Luebke,

AIA  Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-4324 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
§ 582.2227 Calcium silicate. ( a ) *Product.* Calcium silicate.
( b ) *Tolerance.* 2 percent and 5 percent.
( c ) *Limitations, restrictions, or explanation.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used at levels not exceeding 2 percent in table salt and 5 percent in baking powder in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT G. WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-89-113-R, CA-98-693-R)

Submitted: March 2, 1999 Decided: April 16, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert G. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert G. Wright appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Wright,

Nos. CR-89-113-R; CA-98-693-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 17, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED