alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
112

63

Austin

Rufus

Biggs

Boardman

Arlington

Wasco

Moro

Cecil

Olex

Grass

Valley

Ione

Lexington

Kent

Heppner

Condon

Shaniko

Mayville

Hardman

Antelope

Fossil

La Grande

Ukiah

Dale

Spray

Monument

Kimberly Hamilton

Mitchell

Long Creek

Fox

Prineville

Sumpter

Dayville

Bates

Mount

Vernon

Post

Prairie City

John

Day

Canyon City

Unity

Paulina

Izee

Seneca

Brothers

Silvies

Heppner

Junction

Clarno

Service

Creek

Richmond

Beech Creek

Logdell

Suplee

Millican

Morgan

Ruggs

Maryhill

Austin

Rufus

Biggs

Boardman

Arlington

Wasco

Moro

Cecil

Olex

Grass

Valley

Ione

Lexington

Kent

Heppner

Condon

Shaniko

Mayville

Hardman

Antelope

Fossil

La Grande

Ukiah

Dale

Spray

Monument

Kimberly

Hamilton

Mitchell

Long Creek

Fox

Prineville

Sumpter

Dayville

Bates

Mount

Vernon

Post

Prairie City

John

Day

Canyon City

Unity

Paulina

Izee

Seneca

Brothers

Silvies

Heppner

Junction

Clarno

Service

Creek

Richmond

Beech Creek

Logdell

Suplee

Millican

Morgan

Ruggs

Maryhill

SHERMAN CO

GILLIAM CO

 WASCO COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

WHEELER COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

MORROW CO 

GRANT CO 

UMITILLA COUNION CO

GRANT CO

BAKER CO

GRANT COUNTY

HARNEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON

OREGON

84

395

395

395

26

26

26

26

20

97

97

207

244

402

380

207 218 218

293

206

206

19

19

27

19

74

7

River

Columbia

John

Day

River

John

Fork

Fork

Middle

North Fork

Day

South

River

North

Fork

Deschutes River

10 0 10 20 Kilometers

10 0 10 20 Miles

W

N

E

S

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

PRINEVILLE DISTRICT

John Day Basin

Resource Management Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2008

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, 

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other 

data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated without notification.

LEGEND

Administered Land

 Bureau of Land Management

 Forest Service

 John Day Fossil Beds

 National Monument

 Other Federal

 State

 Private or Other

Planning Area Boundary

Transportation Management Areas

Lower John Day

Sutton Mountain

Rudio Mountain

North Fork

South Fork

Upper John Day

OREGON

84

84 5

5

101

101

395

395

395

199

26

26

26

20

97 197

97

20

95

26

30

Coos Bay

Florence

Newport

Portland The

Dalles

Albany

Bend

Salem

Tillamook

Eugene

Madras

Roseburg

Medford

Lakeview

Burns

Vale

Pendleton

Baker

City

Klamath

Falls

Grants Pass

Astoria

PA

C I F I C

O

C

E

A

N

Prineville 

District

John Day Basin

Planning

Area

John Day Basin

Planning

Prineville

John

Day

M07-09-01:7-21-08

LOWER

JOHN

DAY

 SUTTON

MOUNTAIN UPPER

JOHN

DAY

NORTH

FORK 

RUDIO

MOUNTAIN

SOUTH

 FORK

LOWER

JOHN

DAY

 SUTTON

MOUNTAIN UPPER

JOHN

DAY

NORTH

FORK 

RUDIO

MOUNTAIN

SOUTH

 FORK

Map 26: Transportation Management Areas
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ08-4-002]


East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

August 31, 2009.
    Take notice that on August 14, 2009, East Kentucky Power 
Cooperative, Inc. filed amendments to Attachment M, Transmission 
Planning Processes, of its safe harbor Open Access Transmission Tariff 
in compliance with the Commission's June 18, 2009 Order, Order 
Conditionally Granting Petition for Declaratory Order, East Kentucky 
Power Cooperative, Inc., 127 FERC 61,280 (2009).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4f2f1e6f7fbdad8dddad1e7c1c4c4dbc6c0f4d2d1c6d79ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c5a594e5f5372707572794f696c6c736e685c7a796e7f327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 4, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21488 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Posse Energy, Ltd./Parsley Energy, LP, 

 

 Appellants,

v.

Parsley Energy, LP and Pacer Energy, 

Ltd./Posse Energy, Ltd.,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00061-CV

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Upton County, Texas 

(TC# 18-06-U4639-OTH-A)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant Posse Energy, Ltd.’s motion to reconsider and vacate 

the submission setting without oral argument. Therefore, the March 26, 2021 submission setting 

is vacated. The above styled and numbered cause will be rescheduled for oral argument at a later

date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
§ 405.1004 Right to a review of QIC notice of dismissal. ( a ) A party to a QIC's dismissal of a request for reconsideration has a right to have the dismissal reviewed by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator if— ( 1 ) The party files a written request for review within 60 calendar days after receipt of the notice of the QIC's dismissal.
( 2 ) The party meets the amount in controversy requirements of § 405.1006.
( 3 ) For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the QIC's dismissal is presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the dismissal notice, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
( 4 ) For purposes of meeting the 60 calendar day filing deadline, the request is considered as filed on the date it is received by the office specified in the QIC's dismissal.
( b ) If the ALJ or attorney adjudicator determines that the QIC's dismissal was in error, he or she vacates the dismissal and remands the case to the QIC for a reconsideration in accordance with § 405.1056.
( c ) If the ALJ or attorney adjudicator affirms the QIC's dismissal of a reconsideration request, he or she issues a notice of decision affirming the QIC dismissal in accordance with § 405.1046(b).
( d ) The ALJ or attorney adjudicator may dismiss the request for review of a QIC's dismissal in accordance with § 405.1052(b).
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 37703, June 30, 2005; 74 FR 65335, Dec. 9, 2009; 82 FR 5109, Jan. 17, 2017]
#### § 31.6 Personnel absent without leave.

No member of any of the services enumerated in § 31.2 shall be entitled when absent without leave to medical relief except at a medical relief station or by a designated physician or designated dentist.

(Sec. 326, 58 Stat. 697, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 253)
# C_2005296EN.01002701.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/27

---

Action brought on 5 September 2005 — De Soeten v Council

(Case T-336/05)

(2005/C 296/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Henders De Soeten (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request for early retirement without any reduction in her pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request for early retirement without any reduction in her pension rights;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a former official of the Council, who has been in retirement since 1 July 2004. She submitted an application for entitlement to the measure referred to in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which enables the Appointing Authority, in the interests of the service and on the basis of objective criteria and transparent procedures introduced by means of general implementing provisions, not to apply the reduction in pension provided for in Article 9(1)(b) to officials leaving the service before the age of 63.

By her action, the applicant contests the decision refusing to grant her that benefit. She submits that one of the candidates who qualified for that measure was assigned to the same department. The applicant therefore takes the view that the requirements of the service were the same in both cases and asserts that the above mentioned article and the general implementing provisions adopted by the Council have been infringed, since both her length of service and her merits were greater than those of the other candidate.

In addition, the applicant alleges that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it held that the assessment of the criterion of the requirements of the service meant that regard should be had to the individual qualities of officials.

---
[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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Writing [electronic resource].**
 
1998 | 2002 | 2007
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.136/4:
Item Number:0455-Q-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000627532
 
September 10, 2019
§ 21.22 Submission of application and evidence of qualifications. ( a ) *Application form.* Every candidate for examination for appointment as an officer shall submit a written application on such form as may be prescribed by the Surgeon General.
( b ) *Documentary evidence.* The application shall be accompanied by such documentary evidence as may be required by the Surgeon General.
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2660

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 24, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to

the Department of the Interior for the Tensas River

National Wildlife Refuge.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 2660 RFS

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED TO BE AP2 PROPRIATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE

3 INTERIOR FOR THE TENSAS RIVER NATIONAL

4 WILDLIFE REFUGE.

5 Section 5(1) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to establish

6 the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge’’, approved

7 June 28, 1980 (Public Law 96–285, 94 Stat. 597), as

8 amended by section 2 of Public Law 99–191 (99 Stat.

9 1327), is amended to read as follows:

10 ‘‘(1) beginning October 1, 1995, not to exceed

11 $20,000,000 to the Department of the Interior;

12 and’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### Mary Whitmark, Respondent, *against*William B. Lorton, Appellant.

(Decided February 3d, 1890.)

Where, on appeal from a judgment of a district court, there is nothing in the record or papers to show that the action was not originaliy one for conversion, it will be presumed that an amendment allowing the action to proceed as an action for conversion was prudential merely and wholly unnecessary, and not that the action was changed from one on contract.

In an action for conversion, proof of what plaintiff had paid for the article alleged to have been converted is no proof of its value, upon which plaintiff can recover more than nominal damages.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the City of New York for the Fourth Judicial District.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*J.*Fennell, for appellant.

*M.*Strassman, for respondent.

Bischoff, J.

There is nothing in the justice s return to indicate that this action was not originally brought to recover damages for conversion, and while, as an abstract proposition of law, the appellant’s contention that the justice had no power, by way of amendment of the complaint, to allow the sub*549stittition of an action sounding in tort for an action upon contract, must be conceded to be correct *(Barnes*v. Quigley, 59 N. Y. 268; *Bockes*v. Lansing, 74 N. Y. 442), the action of the appellate court reversing the proceedings of the trial justice must be predicated upon clear and convincing proof that the justice erred in the exercise of his powers. The summons issued out of a district court is uniform for all actions of which such courts have jurisdiction, and it was therefore not apparent from the summons issued herein that this action was not for conversion. The certificate of the justice to the return distinctly states that the action was for damages for conversion, and the proceedings upon the trial sustain the justice. The pleadings were oral, and this court is therefore not enabled to say that the amendment allowing the action to proceed as an action for the conversion of personal property was not prudential merely, though wholly unnecessary, and, for want of proof to the contrary, it must be so regarded.

The trial justice erred, however, in awarding more than nominal damages to the plaintiff. There is no proof of the value of the sewing machine for the conversion of which this action was brought, and in the absence of proof of value nominal damages only are recoverable *(Connoss*v. *Meir,*2 E. D. Smith 314).

It is true that plaintiff testified that she had paid $49,00 to one Tuekermann on account of the purchase price of the machine, but proof of what plaintiff has paid or agreed to pay for the thing alleged to have been wrongfully converted is no proof of its value.

Judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

Bookstaver, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
#### § 11.2 What is the purpose of this part?

This part implements section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)) by providing requirements and procedures for the submission of clinical trial information for certain applicable clinical trials and other clinical trials to the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to be made publicly available via ClinicalTrials.gov, the Internet-accessible clinical trial registry and results data bank established by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) at *https://clinicaltrials.gov.*
40905.

#### REED v. THE STATE.

Decided September 22, 1964.

*306
      *Wyatt & Wyatt,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wright Lipford, Solicitor General, E. W. Fleming, Assistant Solicitor General,*contra.

Russell, Judge.

“It is well-settled law that the jury, in a criminal case, in listening to the testimony of a witness, have the authority to consider his appearance and demeanor while testifying, his interest, if any, in.the case, and the probability or. improbability of his testimony, and to believe it or reject it, or to believe a part of it and to reject other parts, and especially is this true where the witness is a near relative.” *McElwaney v. State,*66 Ga. App. 112 (17 SE2d 202). From the testimony set out above, the jury might have concluded (a) that the victim *307never went to the defendant’s home at all, but the defendant came out with an axe and without any provocation hit him in the head; (b) that the victim and others went into the defendant’s house in an aggressive and obstreperous manner and were forced out, but the defendant then followed them into the road and swung the axe in anger rather than self-defense; (e) that the victim, his brother and cousin were attacking the defendant with knives and a gun and the defendant swung at them in self-defense. Only in the last of these circumstances might the defendant have been justified under the theory of self-defense or defense of habitation. The evidence, accordingly, did not demand a finding of justification, and there was no error in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
#### Raye Alan CARNIELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1981.

J. David Bogenschutz of Varón & Stahl, P. A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Borden v. State,*402 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1981).

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
#### Gloria F. SMITH, Appellant, v. William F. SMITH, Appellee.

No. II-119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 27, 1978.

*833John P. Welch of Jones & Welch, Pensacola, for appellant.

George G. Phillips, Pensacola, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order modifying a prior award of child support. The record reflects that there was no pleading requesting a modification of child support, nor was there any indication that financial information adduced at the hearing to prove arrearages and ability to pay would be considered by the court as a basis for modification. See *Cortina v. Cortina,*98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957); *Avery*v. *Avery,*314 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); *Williams v. Williams,*272 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).

Accordingly, we reverse that provision of the order reducing child support.

Appellant’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. This case is remanded to the trial court for fixing the amount.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 405
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart C of part 405 appear at 76 FR 5961, Feb. 2, 2011.

§ 405.350 Individual's liability for payments made to providers and other persons for items and services furnished the individual. Any payment made under title XVIII of the Act to any provider of services or other person with respect to any item or service furnished an individual shall be regarded as a payment to the individual, and adjustment shall be made pursuant to §§ 405.352 through 405.358 where: ( a ) More than the correct amount is paid to a provider of services or other person and the Secretary determines that: ( 1 ) Within a reasonable period of time, the excess over the correct amount cannot be recouped from the provider of services or other person, or
( 2 ) The provider of services or other person was without fault with respect to the payment of such excess over the correct amount, or
( b ) A payment has been made under the provisions described in section 1814(e) of the Act, to a provider of services for items and services furnished the individual.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a provider of services or other person must, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be deemed to be without fault if the determination of the carrier, the intermediary, or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that more than the correct amount was paid was made subsequent to the fifth year following the year in which notice was sent to such individual that such amount had been paid.
[41 FR 1492, Jan. 8, 1976. Redesignated at 42 FR 52826, Sept. 30, 1977, as amended at 61 FR 49271, Sept. 19, 1996; 78 FR 74810, Dec. 10, 2013]
§ 3.310 Responsibilities of respondents. ( a ) *Provide records and compliance reports.* A respondent must keep such records and submit such compliance reports, in such time and manner and containing such information, as the Secretary may determine to be necessary to enable the Secretary to ascertain whether the respondent has complied or is complying with the applicable confidentiality provisions.
( b ) *Cooperate with complaint investigations and compliance reviews.* A respondent must cooperate with the Secretary, if the Secretary undertakes an investigation or compliance review of the policies, procedures, or practices of the respondent to determine whether it is complying with the applicable confidentiality provisions.
( c ) *Permit access to information.* ( 1 ) A respondent must permit access by the Secretary during normal business hours to its facilities, books, records, accounts, and other sources of information, including patient safety work product, that are pertinent to ascertaining compliance with the applicable confidentiality provisions. If the Secretary determines that exigent circumstances exist, such as when documents may be hidden or destroyed, a respondent must permit access by the Secretary at any time and without notice.
( 2 ) If any information required of a respondent under this section is in the exclusive possession of any other agency, institution, or person, and the other agency, institution, or person fails or refuses to furnish the information, the respondent must so certify and set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.