alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to Approved Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: This publishes notice of an Amendment to a Compact between the 
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Pottawatomi Indians and the State of 
Michigan providing for the Conduct of Tribal Class III Gaming by the 
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Pottawatomi Indians taking effect.

DATES: Effective Date: October 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula L. Hart, Acting Director, Office 
of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. The amendment changes the 
regulatory payment amount to a minimum of $50,000 or .05% of the 
Tribe's annual Class III net win, whichever is greater. This amendment 
also modifies the Tribe's revenue sharing payments conditioned on the 
Tribe's net win falling below certain levels. The amendment permits 
downward adjustments of the Tribe's revenue sharing payments.

    Dated: September 30, 2009.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-24301 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
Appendix B - California Districts Designated Nonattainment for Ozone, PM2.5, and/or Pb

District

1997 Ozone 

NAAQS

2008 Ozone 

NAAQS

1997 PM2.5 

NAAQS

2006 PM2.5 

NAAQS

2008 Pb 

NAAQS

1 Amador County APCD NA

2 Antelope Valley APCD NA NA

3 Bay Area AQMD NA NA NA

4 Butte County AQMD NA NA NA (P)

5 Calaveras County APCD NA NA

6 Eastern Kern APCD NA (P) NA (P)

7 El Dorado County APCD NA (P) NA (P) NA (P)

8 Feather River AQMD NA (P) NA (P) NA (P)

9 Imperial County APCD NA NA NA (P)

10 Mariposa County APCD NA NA

11 Mojave Desert AQMD NA (P) NA (P)

12 Northern Sierra AQMD NA (P) NA (P)

13 Placer County APCD NA (P) NA (P) NA (P)

14 Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD NA NA NA

15 San Diego County APCD NA NA

16 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD NA NA NA NA

17 San Luis Obispo County APCD NA (P)

18 South Coast AQMD NA (P) NA (P) NA (P) NA (P) NA (P)

19 Tehama County APCD NA (P)

20 Tuolumne County APCD NA

21 Ventura County APCD NA (P) NA (P)

22 Yolo-Solano AQMD NA NA NA (P)

NA = designated nonattainment

(P) = only a portion of the air district is designated nonattainment

Note: This list does not reflect areas of Indian country within California that are separately designated nonattainment

For further descriptions of the nonattainment areas, visit EPA's Green Book at: www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Ingrid Setzler" <isetzler@bpu.com>

Date: 7/26/2010 11:16 AM

Subject: RE: Extension Request for BPU Plant ID's 03977 & 07022

Attachments: pic02800.gif

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the following Kansas City Board of Public

Utilities facilities:

 Nearman Creek

 Quindaro

The deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed

questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. If you need assistance

during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please

contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or

by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic02800.gif)

 

 From: "Ingrid Setzler" <isetzler@bpu.com> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 07/23/2010 11:04 AM 

 Subject: RE: Extension Request for BPU Plant ID's 03977 & 07022 

Ms. Alicea –

I am responded to your voicemail on July 22, 2010 regarding the

extension request for the Wastewater ICR, BPU facility ID numbers 03977

and 07022. You had requested my email address: isetzler@bpu.com.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you,

Ingrid Setzler

Sr. Environmental Scientist

Kansas City Board of Public Utilities
Tel: 913.573.9806

Fax: 913.573.9838
[Cite as State v. Noble , 2013-Ohio-5495.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-06-099

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 12/16/2013 : LEONARD JOSEPH NOBLE, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2013-03-0364

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee Fred S. Miller, Baden & Jones Bldg., 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendantappellant

Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Leonard Joseph Noble, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1)Butler CA2013-06-099 indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists three potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00458-CV

John Stritzinger, Appellant

v.

Katherine Wright, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-04-004690, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In this cause, John Stritzinger appealed from a July 9, 2010, “Order Granting

Katherine Wright’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order” and a July 21, 2010, “Order

Requiring John Stritzinger to Seek Court Approval Prior to Requesting Issuance of a Subpoena.” 

Appellee Katherine Wright filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of subject-matter

jurisdiction, urging that neither of the orders on appeal is final and appealable and that the legislature

has not granted this Court appellate jurisdiction over these types of interlocutory orders. Stritzinger

has filed a series of motions in which he has at times requested dismissal, and at times opposed it. 

First, Stritzinger filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, explaining that “such matter

is currently being addressed with the trial court.” He further requested that we seal the appellate
record in this cause. Wright opposed Stritzinger’s motion to seal. Subsequently, Stritzinger filed 1

a motion to withdraw his motion to dismiss, as well as a motion to consolidate this cause with

another cause, 03-10-00651-CV, in which Stritzinger has appealed another interlocutory

district court order from the same underlying child-custody proceeding. Thereafter, Stritzinger

reversed course and filed a “First Amended Motion to Dismiss”in which he again seeks to

voluntarily dismiss this appeal and to seal the record.

We grant Stritzinger’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss to the extent of dismissing

his appeal in Cause No. 03-10-00458-CV, see Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), but deny his request to seal

the record. We dismiss as moot the parties’ other pending motions in this cause.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: December 15, 2010

This motion also requested that we seal the records in two other of his appeals that we 1

have dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, Cause Nos. 03-10-00456-CV and -00457.

Stritzenger has also requested the same relief via separate motions filed in each of those causes. We

have disposed of all of his sealing motions pertaining to 03-10-00456-CV and -00457 by separate

order.

2
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 08

- 00235

- CR

JON DREW RICH

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 78

- 25040

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant seeks to appeal the trial c ourt’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc

pro tunc which he filed nearly three years after imposition of sentence. The Clerk of

this Court advised the parties that th e appeal is subject to dismissal for want of

jurisdiction because it appears there ha s been no appealable order. See Everett v. State

,

82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.

— Waco 20 02, pet. dism’d). The Clerk also notified the

parties that the appeal may be dismissed unless a response was filed showing grounds

for continuing the appeal.Rich v. State Page 2

No respon se has been filed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Id.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 22, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]
42522.

#### NUNN v. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY.

*Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*

Submitted January 4, 1967

Decided February 2, 1967.

*Fred W. Minter,*for appellant.

*Talley Kirkland,*for appellee.

Hall, Judge.

The judgment appealed from is one sustaining general demurrers to the defendant’s plea of duress and answer, and is not an appealable judgment under the Appellate Practice Act of 1965. Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, § 1 (a) (1); *Code Ann.*§ 6-701 (a) (1).

The appeal must be dismissed. *Code Ann.*§ 6-809 (b) (1, 2).

*Appeal dismissed.*
§ 269b.420 Designation of hearing officer. ( a ) The panel, absent special circumstances, shall employ the center to select the hearing officer to conduct the hearing at a site most convenient to the parties and witnesses. The individual who performed the investigation, pursuant to § 269b.210, shall be barred from acting as a hearing officer on the same matter, unless all parties in interest agree to his participation. The selection of the hearing officer, to the extent practicable, shall be done with the concurrence of the parties.
( b ) Any party may request the hearing officer, at any time following his designation and before the filing of his decision, to withdraw on grounds of previously demonstrated personal bias, conflict of interest, or prejudice by filing with him promptly upon the discovery of the alleged facts a timely affidavit setting forth in detail the matters alleged to constitute grounds for disqualification. If, in the opinion of the hearing officer, such affidavit is filed with due diligence and is sufficient on its face, he shall forthwith disqualify himself and withdraw from the proceeding. If he does not so withdraw, he shall so rule upon the record, stating the grounds for his ruling and proceed with the hearing, or, if the hearing has closed, he shall proceed with the issuance of his decision, and his ruling shall be subject to the same review by the panel that is given to the rest of his decision.
( c ) The costs of conducting the hearing and of the hearing officer shall be borne by the panel. Witness fees and expenses shall be paid by the party at whose instance the witnesses appear.
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

** **

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Davidson Growth Plus, L.P.(the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of thePartnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financialofficer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
§ 223.1 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has issued this part (Regulation W) under the authority of sections 23A(f) and 23B(e) of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) (12 U.S.C. 371c(f), 371c-1(e)) section 11 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1468), and section 312(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5412).
( b ) *Purpose.* Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c, 371c-1) establish certain quantitative limits and other prudential requirements for loans, purchases of assets, and certain other transactions between a member bank and its affiliates. This regulation implements sections 23A and 23B by defining terms used in the statute, explaining the statute's requirements, and exempting certain transactions.
( c ) *Scope.* Sections 23A and 23B and this regulation apply by their terms to “member banks”—that is, any national bank, State bank, trust company, or other institution that is a member of the Federal Reserve System. In addition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(j)) applies sections 23A and 23B to insured State nonmember banks in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were member banks. The Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1468(a)) also applies sections 23A and 23B to insured savings associations in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were member banks (and imposes two additional restrictions).
[67 FR 76604, Dec. 12, 2002, as amended at 76 FR 56531, Sept. 13, 2011]
# C_2019009EN.01000501.xml

| 10.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/5

---

EFTA Surveillance Authority notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2019

(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (1)
  )

(2019/C 9/06)

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by the Authority’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.

Base rates have been determined as follows:

| | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.1.2019 – | 4,93 | -0,53 | 1,25 |

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

1.1.2019 –

4,93

-0,53

1,25

---

(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information taken from the balance sheet as of 
December 31, 1996 (unaudited) and the statement of operations for the six-month period 
ended December 31, 1996 (unaudited), and is qualified in its entirety by reference to 
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K  for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1996.
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                    9,743,147
<SECURITIES>                                    (0)
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,327,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (0)
<INVENTORY>                                   4,586
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         12,304,854
<PP&E>                                      728,998
<DEPRECIATION>                              723,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           17,670,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4,245,639
<BONDS>                                         (0)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           (0)
<PREFERRED>                                     (0)
<COMMON>                                  8,885,103
<OTHER-SE>                                2,413,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             17,670,412
<SALES>                                     302,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         14,995,675
<CGS>                                       182,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               182,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            759,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (0)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (0)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          14,472,024
<INCOME-TAX>                              2,573,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (0)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (0)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (0)
<CHANGES>                                       (0)
<NET-INCOME>                             11,899,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.41
        

</TABLE>
July 23, 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

 

Re: Exemption No 8794B, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26039 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 11.63 and 11.81, US 

Airways, Inc (US Airways) petitions the Administrator to amend Exemption No 8794B 

to extend the expiration date of the exemption from October 31, 2012, to October 31, 

2014, or other such future date as may be found acceptable. Exemption No 8794B, as 

amended, grants relief from 14 CFR part 121.434 (c)(1)(ii) so as to allow US Airways to 

substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an 

FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial 

or upgrade training specified in §121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a 

takeoff and a landing. 

This exemption has been used by US Airways for almost six years, and by several other 

airlines, with no negative impact. US Airways continues to be in compliance with the 

conditions of the exemption to 14 CFR part 121.434 (c)(1)(ii), and believes that 

extending Exemption No. 8794B, as stated, would have no adverse effect on safety. 

Therefore, we respectfully request an extension of Exemption No. 8794B for two years, 

or other appropriate regulatory relief. 

US Airways suggests that good cause exists for waiving publication of notice of this 

petition in the Federal Register. The grant of exemption petitioned for here would not set 

a precedent, and the exemption would in all ways, other than the effective date, be 

identical to the exemption now in place. Delay in acting on the petition would be 

detrimental to the petitioner and to the public, as well. 

4000 East Sky Harbor Blvd, FC-FSS, Phoenix, AZ 85034 (480) 693-4660 Fax (480) 693-4936 
SUMMARY 

US Airways, Inc. petitions for an amendment to Exemption No 8794B to extend the 

expiration date of same, which permits US Airways to substitute a qualified and 

authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a 

qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified 

in §121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

Please let me know if there is any further information you need for your review of this 

petition. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Captain Lyle Hogg 

Vice President, Flight Operations 

US Airways, Inc. 

4000 East Sky Harbor Boulevard 

FC-FSS 

Phoenix, AZ 85034
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                           660,192
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    304,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,226,440
<PP&E>                                         1,281,691
<DEPRECIATION>                                   937,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,787,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            444,611
<BONDS>                                          189,000
<COMMON>                                          40,754
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        3,882
<OTHER-SE>                                       902,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,787,269
<SALES>                                        3,009,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,447,717
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,978,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                15,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   43,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               43,088
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      43,088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        



</TABLE>