alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-2047 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-013-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is

made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for individual

or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended

by BLM. This map may not meet National Map Accuracy 

Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and information may be updated without notification.

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5

Miles

(

£¤

^

^

(

Rushw

k

a

B

te e

r Cre

luew

31 at

31 e

36 31 36 31 36 r Creek

kee Cr erry

C h

6 1 6 6 1 6 1

kee Cr

North

Bridger Creek

Dry Cr

Pryor Mountain Road

Ja

k

c

e

k

e

C

r

ree

 C

k

egaS

31 31 Dry Cr

31 36

36 31 36

S

6 o1 6 6 u

1 H

6 u

t

n

1 h

t

F

C

o

r

r

e

k

ek

Silver Tip

Creek

Bear Creek Belfry

Cottonwood 

Creek Road

Cottonwood Creek

Jack Cre

ee k

e

r

C

k

Wolf C

ottonwo

S

W

o

age

i

d

ll

C

i

C

r

r

e

a

e

e

e

k

m

k

s

Roa

D

d

raw Roa

31 36 31 31 d

36 31 36

Cub

Cr eek

Cot

e Cre

ek t

r

6

Grov

ek

6 o

e

n

1 6 w

1 6 1 C

o

sr

o

e

d 

t n

Cr

u

ee

H

k Road

daoy RaruQ

Silver

Cot

T

t

i

on

p

wo

R

od

o

 C

a

re

Warren d

ek Road

dao

ek R re

od C

wo n Cotto

T

9

S

Route information and proposed management actions in this 

document only apply to Bureau of Land Management lands.

No route designations will be made on non-federal or private lands.

 The information on this map is developed from a variety of

 data sources and input scales may cause some misalignment of 

data layers. This map is for planning purposes only, and not 

intended for on-ground travel. 1:60,000

Wyoming

T

7

S

Big Horn County

Carbon County

87

310

T

8

S

r e v

R

i

t o n e

s

o

w

Y e

l l

k

o r

F

s k r

l a

C

R22E

R23E R24E

Location Map

Legend

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

±

County Boundary

Recommended Routes

Open to All Vehicles: 29 Miles

Open with Additional Management: 4 Miles

Administrative Use Only: .5 Miles

Closed to All Vehicles: .5 Miles

Roads

Lakes

Streams

Bureau of Land Management

Division of State Lands

Bureau of Indian Affairs

State Parks and Recreation

U.S. Forest Service

Water

Public Lands Survey System

Private

Warren Travel Management Area

Warren

Travel Management Area 

Alternative C

Map 141

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
#### PALMER v. THE STATE.

Injunction — evidence—record—repair of roads and bridges — trespasser ab initio.

A writ of injunction may be given in evidence, without the record of the case, and for a supervisor of highways, though directed to him as an individual.

The authority to enter adjoining land and cut timber to repair roads, covers the like entry to repair a bridge part of the road, and that authority is not limited to the period between the 1st of April and the 1st of October, but maybe exercised whenever the retad is out of repair. A supervisor entering to cut timber for repair of road may be held a trespasser ab initio.

Error to the Common Pleas. Palmer was indicted for an assault and battery upon Huntoon. On trial it appeared, that when the assault and battery was committed, Huntoon was a supervisor of highways, and was upon Palmer’s land cutting timber to repair a bridge, and the assault., &c. was to prevent him. Palmer offered a writ of injunction from chancery, enjoining Huntoon from entering on the land to cut timber. To this the state objected, because the *record*in chancery was not offered with it; .because the writ was directed to Huntoon in his *individual*character; and, because the evidence was irrelevant. The objections were overruled by the court and excepted to. Palmer asked the court to instruct the jury, that, under the supervisor’s act (29 *O.L.*368) of March 29, 1832, when the act complained of was done, there was no authority ' to cut timber to build or repair a bridge; and that if Huntoon took the best timber and left the poorest, he was a trespasser, and' ■Palmer might resist. The court refused the instruction,which was excepted to. It is assigned for error that the court erred in admitting the evidence, and refusing the *instructions.*The court charged the jury, that if Huntoon committed waste while clothed with legal authority, he would be held a trespasser,' ab initio. This charge is also assigned for error.

.By the Court.

We entertain the opinion that a bridge on a public road, is within the spirit of the act prescribing the duties of supervisors, and that the authority to cut timber to repair roads, includes authority to cut for the appropriate purpose of *repairing a bridge;*and the exei’cise of this power is not confined to the period between the 1st of April and the 1st of October, but is operative whenever the road, &c. is out of repair. We see no objection to the evidence admitted, or to the charge of the court, or the refusal to charge.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.11

                     GTECH CORPORATION EXECUTIVE PERQUISITES
                     PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER PARTICIPANTS

W. Bruce Turner
Howard Cohen (employment terminated in August 2002)
David Calabro
Jaymin Patel
Kathleen McKeough
Larry Smith
Marc Crisafulli
Antonio Carlos Rocha
Timothy Nyman*
Donald Sweitzer

* Received prorated payment as of date of promotion on October 8, 2002.
#### MORSE DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO. v. UNITED STATES

[77 C.Cls. 57; 291 U.S. 672]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court February 19, 1934.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 60057 Summary Calendar

**____________ Jose Raul Lopez** 

**- Galeaz,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus **Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

**______________________________** Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A077 620 182

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham, Stewart,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Jose Raul Lopez

- Galeaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding t he immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) . We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 14, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60057 Document: 00516857352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2023No. 23

- 60057

2 judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BI A. S ee S antos

- Alvarado v. Barr , 967 F.3d 428, 436 (5th Cir. 2020). We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez

- Galeaz ’s challenge to the hardship finding with regard to cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ; Castillo

- Gutierrez v. Garland , 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). Because the issue of hardship is dispositive in establishing his ineligibility for cancellation of removal, we do not reach his argument concerning continuous physical presence in the Unite d States. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)

. As to withholding of removal, the BIA upheld the immigration judge’s finding on nexus and alternatively deemed that the issue of nexus was waived because Lopez

- Galeaz did not challenge it. An appli cant’s failure to demonstrate nexus is dispositive for withholding of removal. See Gonzales

Veliz v. Barr , 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). Lopez

- Galeaz does not contest the BIA’s waiver ruling here and therefore has waived any such challenge in this c ourt. See Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). T he BIA’s waiver determination is a sufficient basis on which to deny the petition for review as to withholding of removal

. See Santos

Alvarado , 967 F.3d at 440 n.13

. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied regarding withholding of removal

. Lopez

- Galeaz also does not dispute the BIA’s determination that he waived the issue of CAT relief in the BIA by failing to challenge it there

. See Chambers , 520 F.3d at 448 n .1

. Thus, the petition for review is also denied regarding CAT relief. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is **DISMISSED** in part for lack of jurisdiction and **DENIED** in all other respects. Case: 23-60057 Document: 00516857352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2023
# C_2020201EN.01003101.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/31

---

Action brought on 27 March 2020 — 3M Belgium v ECHA

(Case T-160/20)

(2020/C 201/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3M Belgium (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul ECHA Decision of 16 January 2020 (ECHA/01/2020) regarding the ‘Inclusion of substances of very high concern in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV’ of the REACH Regulation (1), as regards the listing of ‘Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (“PFBS”) and its salts’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul ECHA Decision of 16 January 2020 (ECHA/01/2020) regarding the ‘Inclusion of substances of very high concern in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV’ of the REACH Regulation (1), as regards the listing of ‘Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (“PFBS”) and its salts’;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation requirements and that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, since it has not demonstrated that the Substance is causing probable serious effects to human health and the environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation requirements and that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, since it has not demonstrated that the Substance is causing probable serious effects to human health and the environment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, including that of foreseeability, given that the applicant was not placed in a position to identify or ascertain in any manner the definition, criteria or factors used by ECHA to support its decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, including that of foreseeability, given that the applicant was not placed in a position to identify or ascertain in any manner the definition, criteria or factors used by ECHA to support its decision.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 2006, p. 1

---
§ 1201.300 Boards and committees. ( a ) NASA's Contract Adjustment Board (CAB) and Inventions and Contributions Board (ICB) were established as part of the permanent organization structure of NASA. Charters for both Boards are set forth in part 1209 of this chapter. Procedures for the CAB are set out in 48 CFR part 1850, and procedures for the ICB are set out in 14 CFR parts 1240 and 1245.
( b ) The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) is a neutral, independent forum whose primary function is to hear and decide post-award contract disputes between government contractors and those entities with whom the ASBCA has entered into agreement to provide services (NASA is one of those entities). The ASBCA functions in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 7101-7109), its Charter, or other remedy-granting provisions. Information about the ASBCA can be obtained by mail at ASBCA, Skyline 6, Suite 700, 5109 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3208, by phone at 703-681-8500, or from the Web at *www.asbca.mil .*
[79 FR 18444, Apr. 2, 2014]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3792

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize a ‘‘child only’’ annuity 

under the Survivor Benefit Plan of the Armed Forces when there is 

a surviving spouse in the case of a member of the Armed Forces dying 

on active duty during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, 

and ending on November 23, 2003. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2004

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize a ‘‘child 

only’’ annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan of the 

Armed Forces when there is a surviving spouse in the 

case of a member of the Armed Forces dying on active 

duty during the period beginning on September 11, 

2001, and ending on November 23, 2003.

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

•HR 3792 IH 

1 SECTION 1. EQUITY FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES OF MEM2 BERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DYING ON AC3 TIVE DUTY DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING 

4 ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, AND ENDING ON NO5 VEMBER 23, 2003. 

6 Subparagraph (B) of section 1448(d)(2) of title 10, 

7 United States Code, as added by section 645(a)(1) of the 

8 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

9 (Public Law 108–136; 117 Stat. 1518), is amended by 

10 striking ‘‘the date of the enactment of the National De11 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004’’ and insert12 ing ‘‘September 11, 2001,’’.

Æ
# Official Journal C 413/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 413 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6330 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 413

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6330 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2020/C 413/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 1 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2020/C 413/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 1

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 28.2
                                                ------------
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

To the Board of Directors
  United Companies Lending Corporation

We have examined management's  assertion  about  United
Companies Lending Corporation's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers
Association  of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program
                          ----------------------------------
for  Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended
---------------------
December  31, 1997  included in the accompanying management
assertion.   Management is responsible for United Companies
Lending Corporation's  compliance  with those minimum
servicing standards.  Our responsibility is to  express  an
opinion on management's  assertion  about the  entity's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was  made  in  accordance  with  standards
established by the American Institute of Certified  Public
Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a  test
basis, evidence about United Companies Lending Corporation's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not
provide a legal determination on United Companies Lending
Corporation's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that United Companies
Lending Corporation  complied  with the aforementioned
minimum  servicing  standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

March 4, 1998
                                 PAGE 8
<PAGE>

        UNITED COMPANIES LENDING CORPORATION (LETTERHEAD)


As of and for the year ended December 31, 1997, United Companies
Lending Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Companies
Lending Group, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of United
Companies Financial Corporation, has complied in all material respects
with the minimum servicing standards set  forth  in  the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program
                                 ----------------------------------
for Mortgage Bankers.  As of and for this same period, United
--------------------
Companies Financial Corporation had in effect fidelity bond and
errors and omissions policies in the amounts of $10,000,000 and
$4,000,000, respectively.




/s/ J. TERRELL BROWN                  3/4/98
------------------------------------  -------------
J. Terrell Brown                      Date
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ DALE QUICK                        3/4/98
------------------------------------  -------------
Dale Quick                            Date
Senior Vice President and
Servicing Manager



/s/ J. MILLER MURREY                  3/4/98
------------------------------------  -------------
J. Miller Murrey                      Date
Vice President and Controller

                               PAGE 9
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certification**
I, Juliet M. Reising, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2004 of Verso Technologies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004    /s/ Juliet M. Reising