alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 5, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41455 Summary Calendar

RICHARD DELANEY KYLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GERALD GARRETT; TROY FOX, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CV-53

-------------------- Before GARZA, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Delaney Kyles, Texas prisoner # 257935, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. As a threshold matter, we are obligated to examine sua sponte the basis of our jurisdiction. See Williams v. Chater , 87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir. 1996). Pursuant to F ED . R.
A PP . P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), the filing of a timely F ED . R. C IV . P. 59(e) motion renders a notice of appeal ineffective until the district court enters an order disposing of the motion. Kyles filed aNo. 04-41455 -2- timely Rule 59(e) motion, but filed his notice of appeal before the district court ruled on the motion. His notice of appeal is, therefore, ineffective. Consequently, this case must be remanded, and the record returned, so that the district court may rule on Kyles’ Rule 59(e) motion “as expeditiously as possible, consistent with a just and fair disposition thereof.” Burt v. Ware , 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). We hold the appeal in abeyance until the notice becomes effective, and we retain jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand. We also instruct the clerk of this court to process the appeal immediately upon the return of the case from the district court.
LIMITED REMAND; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE.
HomeDirect Line for American Business...Hydropower Opportunities in Greenland

# 									Hydropower Opportunities in Greenland							

Direct Line Event

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

April 26, 2023

**Topic**: Hydropower Opportunities in Greenland 

**Host**: U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark Alan Leventhal

**Date/time:**Wednesday, April 26 at 11 a.m. EDT

**Description**: Join U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark Alan Leventhal and Greenlandic Minister for Agriculture, Self-Sufficiency, Energy and Environment Kalistat Lund to explore an opportunity to partner in the development of Greenland’s hydropower sector and establish a commercial off-take industry.  The Government of Greenland will invite investors to bid in 2023-24 for two hydropower projects, located on the Southwest coast of Greenland between Kangerlussuaq and Nuuk.  Investment potential in the larger project is estimated at US$3-4 billion for plant construction, transmission lines, and commercial offtake.  The Greenlandic government anticipates a combined installed capacity of 750-800MW, with a firm energy output of 9,500-10,000GWh/a for the two projects, increasing over time due to increased meltwater.  Greenland is looking to engage with potential U.S. investors and other service and technology providers from the energy sector, offtake industries such as green hydrogen or ammonia production or processing of minerals, and/or investment funds.

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDenmarkDirect LineGreenland

Back to Top
PAULA KRUEGER

,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3977

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 17, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Robert E. Roundtree , Judge

.

N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Gainesville , for Appellant.

Kristen M. Van Der Linde, Kansas R. Gooden, and Loreyn Raab of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Jacksonville; Laura dePaz Cabrera, Alachua , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., MAKAR and JAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3518

To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive application of State

regulations regarding reformulated gas in certain areas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1996

Mr. BILBRAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive application of State regulations regarding reformulated gas in

certain areas.

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

3 SECTION 1. STATE REFORMULATED GAS RULES.

4 Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act is amended

5 by adding the following at the end thereof: ‘‘Whenever any

6 such State has promulgated reformulated gas rules for

7 any covered area (as defined in subsection (k)), such rules

8 shall apply in such area in lieu of the requirements of sub9 section (k) if such State rules will achieve equivalent or

10 greater reductions in emissions of ozone-forming com-
2

•HR 3518 IH

1 pounds and of toxic air contaminants than would result

2 from the application of the requirements of subsection

3 (k).’’.

Æ
§ 425.315 Reopening determinations of ACO shared savings or shared losses to correct financial reconciliation calculations. ( a ) *Reopenings.* ( 1 ) If CMS determines that the amount of shared savings due to the ACO or the amount of shared losses owed by the ACO has been calculated in error, CMS may reopen the initial determination or a final agency determination under subpart I of this part and issue a revised initial determination: ( i ) At any time in the case of fraud or similar fault as defined in § 405.902; or
( ii ) Not later than 4 years after the date of the notification to the ACO of the initial determination of savings or losses for the relevant performance year under § 425.604(f), § 425.605(e), § 425.606(h), § 425.609(e) or § 425.610(h), for good cause.
( 2 ) Good cause may be established when— ( i ) There is new and material evidence that was not available or known at the time of the payment determination and may result in a different conclusion; or
( ii ) The evidence that was considered in making the payment determination clearly shows on its face that an obvious error was made at the time of the payment determination.
( 3 ) A change of legal interpretation or policy by CMS in a regulation, CMS ruling or CMS general instruction, whether made in response to judicial precedent or otherwise, is not a basis for reopening a payment determination under this section.
( 4 ) CMS has sole discretion to determine whether good cause exists for reopening a payment determination under this section.
( b ) [Reserved]
[81 FR 38013, June 10, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 60092, Nov. 23, 2018; 83 FR 68068, Dec. 31, 2018]
#### Bobby G. BARRETT v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47974.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1974.

O’Barr, Coleman & Burns, Okolona, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Pete J. Caj oleas, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, SUGG and BROOM, JJ-

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITEM 1 OF FORM 10-K DATED DECEMBER 31, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              77
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      77
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              146
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (69)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        77
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,294
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,208
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 435.602 Financial responsibility of relatives and other individuals. ( a ) ( 1 ) This section only applies to individuals excepted from application of MAGI-based methods in accordance with § 435.603(j).
( 2 ) *Basic requirements.* Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, in determining financial responsibility of relatives and other persons for individuals under Medicaid, the agency must apply the following requirements and methodologies: ( i ) Except for a spouse of an individual or a parent for a child who is under age 21 or blind or disabled, the agency must not consider income and resources of any relative as available to an individual.
( ii ) In relation to individuals under age 21 (as described in section 1905(a)(i) of the Act), the financial responsibility requirements and methodologies that apply include considering the income and resources of parents or spouses whose income and resources will be considered if the individual under age 21 were dependent under the State's approved State plan under title IV-A of the Act in effect as of July 16, 1996, whether or not they are actually contributed, except as specified under paragraph (c) of this section. These requirements and methodologies must be applied in accordance with the provisions of the State's approved title IV-A State plan as of July 16, 1996.
( iii ) When a couple ceases to live together, the agency must count only the income of the individual spouse in determining his or her eligibility, beginning the first month following the month the couple ceases to live together.
( iv ) In the case of eligible institutionalized spouses who are aged, blind, and disabled and who have shared the same room in a title XIX Medicaid institution, the agency has the option of considering these couples as eligible couples for purposes of counting income and resources or as eligible individuals, whichever is more advantageous to the couple.
( b ) *Requirements for States using more restrictive requirements.* Subject to the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, in determining financial eligibility of aged, blind, or disabled individuals in States that apply eligibility requirements more restrictive than those used under SSI, the agency must apply: ( 1 ) The requirements and methodologies for financial responsibility of relatives used under the SSI program; or
( 2 ) More extensive requirements for relative responsibility than specified in § 435.602(a) but no more extensive than the requirements under the Medicaid plan in effect on January 1, 1972.
( c ) *Use of less restrictive methodologies.* The agency may apply income and resources methodologies that are less restrictive than those used under the cash assistance programs as specified in the State Medicaid plan in accordance with § 435.601(d).
( d ) [Reserved]
[58 FR 4930, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 43052, Aug. 22, 1994; 81 FR 86456, Nov. 30, 2016]
#### THE UNITED STATES v. NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION & TRADING COMPANY; NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION & TRADING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 424 ; 253 U. S., 330.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the court below for a portion of the amount claimed. On cross-appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

When the Government without condemnation proceedings appropriates with legislative authority private property for a public use, it impliedly promises to pay therefor, but in order that the Government be liable it must appear that the officer taking possession of the property is authorized so to do by Congress or by the official on whom Congress conferred the power.

The acts of March 3, 1899, c. 423, 30 Stat., 1064, 1070, and of May 26, 1900, c. 586, 31 Stat., 205, 213, making appropriations for quarters for troops, sufficiently authorize the Secretary of War to take land for this purpose, but vest no authority in a general commanding a department. *Held,*that the action of the general in taking possession of the land was tortious *523and no liability on the part of the Government was created until the action was approved by the Secretary of War, and since this approval occurred within six years before the commencement of this suit the suit was not barred by section 156 of the Judicial Code.

The President’s order reserving a tract largely public land, “ subject to any legal rights which may exist to any land within its limits,” did not mean that private land actually occupied was not taken for a public use, but merely that the right to compensation was recognized, and, in any event, the continued occupation of the private land and the erection of buildings thereon was such an appropriation as would give rise to a cause of action against the Government.

The right to bring suit against the United States in the Court of Claims for private property taken for a public purpose without condemnation proceedings is not founded on the fifth amendment but on the .existence of an implied contract to pay the value of the property as of the date of the taking, and interest may not be added, because of section 177 of the Judicial Code.

While interest might be allowed in condemnation proceedings instituted by the United States against the owner of property taken for a public purpose, as compensation for the use and occupation of the land prior to the passage of the title, it can not be recovered in a suit in the Court of Claims against the United States.

Mr. Justice BRANdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court June 1, 1920.
exhibit10_10.htm


    Exhibit 10.10

    


    AMENDMENT
TO

    TARGA
RESOURCES INVESTMENTS INC.

    KEY
EMPLOYEE LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

    


    


    WHEREAS, TARGA RESOURCES INVESTMENTS
INC. (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the TARGA RESOURCES INVESTMENTS INC. KEY
EMPLOYEE LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Plan”) for the benefit of certain
of the employees of the Company and its affiliates and as an incentive for such
individuals to remain employees of the Company or its affiliates;

     

    WHEREAS, the Company may amend
the Plan at any time in its discretion; and

     

     WHEREAS, the Company desires
to amend the Plan to comply with section 409A of the Internal Revenue of Code of
1986, as amended;

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall
be amended as follows, effective as of December 18th, 2008:

     

    1.           Section
6 of the Plan shall be deleted, and the following shall be substituted
therefore:

     

    “6.           Payment of Incentive Benefit
After Death of Employee.  If an Employee terminates employment
due to death and is entitled to receive the Incentive Benefit which would be
payable on the next following Employment Incentive Date pursuant to Section 4(a)
hereof, such Incentive Benefit shall be paid in a lump sum cash payment, subject
to applicable withholding, as soon as practicable after the date of death but in
no event later than the 15th day of
March following the end of the calendar year during which the death occurs to
(a) the Employee’s beneficiary (or beneficiaries) designated under the
employer’s group life insurance plan, if living, or, (b) if none is so
designated or living, the executor of the Employee’s estate.”

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              The
      third sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be deleted, and the
      following shall be substituted
therefore:

            


    

     

    “Except
as provided in Section 6 below with respect to payments made after the death of
an Employee, such Incentive Benefit shall be payable in a lump sum cash payment,
subject to applicable withholding, (A) within 20 business days after the date of
termination in the event of a termination other than for Cause, or (B) in the
event of a determination of Disability, no later than the earlier of (1) March
15 of the year following the year of the date of determination or (2) 30
business days after the Incentive Payment Date.”

     

    EXECUTED and effective as of
December 18, 2008.

    


    TARGA
RESOURCES INVESTMENTS INC.

    


    


    By:                      /s/     Rene R.
Joyce________

    Name:                                Rene
R. Joyce

    Title:                                Chief
Executive Officer
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-8136 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-189-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspecton 40.0 $3,400.0

0

$3,400.00 3 $10,200.00

Modification 40.0 $3,400.0

0

$210 $3,610.00 3 $10,830.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $21,030

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Uruguayan Foreign Minister Bustillo

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Uruguayan Foreign Minister Bustillo							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

November 8, 2021

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman met with Uruguayan Foreign Minister Francisco Bustillo today in Montevideo, Uruguay.  Deputy Secretary Sherman and Foreign Minister Bustillo discussed the strength of the U.S.-Uruguay bilateral relationship, including on bilateral trade and investment.  They also highlighted the importance of Uruguay’s regional and global leadership in defending democracy and human rights, international peacekeeping, and protecting the environment.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonUruguay

Back to Top
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Flake, Jeffry Lane -Republic of Turkey – August 2021

# 									Flake, Jeffry Lane -Republic of Turkey – August 2021							

Certificate of Competency

August 6, 2021

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:                  Republic of Turkey

CANDIDATE:     Jeffry Lane Flake

Jeffry L. Flake is a Distinguished Fellow at Arizona State University and a Distinguished Fellow at the Sorensen Center for Moral and Ethical Leadership at Brigham Young University.  He was a Member of Congress for 18 years, representing Arizona in the U.S. Senate (2013-2019) and the U.S. House of Representatives (2001-2013), where he served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  A frequent public speaker, he was a former contributor to CNN and CBS News.  Mr. Flake is a Director of Taylor Morrison, a home builder in Scottsdale, Arizona, and a former Executive Director of the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Arizona.  His distinguished career as a business leader, foreign policy analyst and elected official make him a well-qualified candidate to serve as a U.S. ambassador.

Mr. Flake was a Resident Fellow at Harvard University’s Institute for Politics and now serves on its Senior Advisory Committee.  Early in his career, he lived overseas as Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Namibia.  He speaks Afrikaans.  He earned a B.A. in International Relations, and an M.A. in Political Science, at Brigham Young University.  He is a recipient of the Gold Medal of Honorary Patronage from the University Philosophical Society, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Back to Top