alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32057-32058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12643]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN60-01-7285b; FRL-6703-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to approve a site specific revision to the 
Minnesota particulate matter (PM) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
LTV Steel Mining Company, formerly known as Erie Mining Company, 
located in St. Louis County, Minnesota. In its submittal, the State has 
requested that we remove the Stipulation Agreement for Erie Mining 
Company from the Minnesota SIP. In the final rules section of this 
Federal Register, we are conditionally approving the SIP revision as a 
direct final rule without prior proposal, because we view this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. 
A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If 
we receive adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn 
and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent 
final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson

[[Page 32058]]

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct 
Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal 
Register. Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available 
for inspection at the above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos 
at (312) 353-8328 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 27, 2000.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 00-12643 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 71

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR 

4 THE PRESENTATION OF THE CONGRES5 SIONAL GOLD MEDAL. 

6 The rotunda of the United States Capitol is author7 ized to be used on April 23, 2008, for the presentation 

8 of the Congressional Gold Medal to Michael Ellis 

9 DeBakey, M.D.. Physical preparations for the conduct of 

10 the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such 

11 conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 

12 Capitol. 

Passed the Senate March 14 (legislative day, March 

13), 2008. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 71

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

Medal to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D.for the presentation of the Congressional Gold
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Spores for Breast and Prostate Cancer.
    Date: June 13-15, 2000.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel Park Terrace on Embassy Row, 1515 Rhode 
Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005.
    Contact Person: Brian E. Wojcik, Phd, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 8019, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-2785.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12894 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-941V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

LOUIS R. BROCKINGTON, *

* Filed: July 8, 2014

Petitioner, * 

* Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’ 

v. * Fees & Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

James M. Griffin, Lewis Babcock & Griffin L.L.P, Columbia, SC, for Petitioner

Justine E. Daigneault, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On November 27, 2013, Petitioner Louis Brockington filed a petition seeking 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On May 27, 2014, the 

parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. On May 28, 2014, I

issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the 

award outlined by the stipulation. 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this 

decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as 

amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), 

however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential 

information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permit each party 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or 

financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or 

similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the public. Id.

 
On July 8, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time 

regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should 

receive a lump sum of $10,819.65 in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and 

Petitioner’s counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In 

accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a statement on July 7, 2014 indicating that he 

had incurred no reimbursable costs in pursuit of his claim.

I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, 

an award should be made in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel, James M. Griffin, Esq., in the amount of $10,819.65. In the absence of a motion for 

review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER 

JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing (jointly or 

separately) notices renouncing their right to seek review.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1178

  

----

## Geophysical Data from offshore of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, Cat Island to Western Horn Island, Mississippi

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13177]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 2000-ASW-09]


Revision of Class E Airspace; Fort Stockton, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which revises Class E airspace at Fort Stockton, TX.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 65 FR 14855 is 
effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air 
Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 20, 2000, 
(65 FR 14855). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on August 10, 2000. No adverse comments were received, 
and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 16, 2000.
JoEllen Casilio,
Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 00-13177 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7872

RONALD BENTON, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-01034-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Benton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Benton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Benton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 778.326 Reduction of regular overtime workweek without reduction of take-home pay.

The reasoning applied in the foregoing sections does not, of course, apply to a situation in which the former earnings at both straight time and overtime are paid to the employee for the reduced workweek. Suppose an employee was hired at an hourly rate of $5 an hour and regularly worked 50 hours, earning $275 as his total straight time and overtime compensation, and the parties now agree to reduce the workweek to 45 hours without any reduction in take-home pay. The parties in such a situation may agree to an increase in the hourly rate from $5 per hour to $6 so that for a workweek of 45 hours (the reduced schedule) the employee's straight time and overtime earnings will be $285. The parties cannot, however, agree that the employee is to receive exactly $285 as total compensation (including overtime pay) for a workweek varying, for example, up to 50 hours, unless he does so pursuant to contracts specifically permitted in section 7(f) of the Act, as discussed in §§ 778.402 through 778.414. An employer cannot otherwise discharge his statutory obligation to pay overtime compensation to an employee who does not work the same fixed hours each week by paying a fixed amount purporting to cover both straight time and overtime compensation for an “agreed” number of hours. To permit such a practice without proper statutory safeguards would result in sanctioning the circumvention of the provisions of the Act which require that an employee who works more than 40 hours in any workweek be compensated, in accordance with express congressional intent, at a rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for the burden of working long hours. In arrangements of this type, no additional financial pressure would fall upon the employer and no additional compensation would be due to the employee under such a plan until the workweek exceeded 50 hours.

[46 FR 7316, Jan. 23, 1981]
Last Name First Name Company

Ahlgrim Kevin Cameron Process Systems

Armstrong Roger Twin Stars Ltd

Bertoglio Gina ConocoPhillips

Blackman Jerome U.S. EPA

Castillo Karena JAN Environmental Protection Office

Crabtree Greg Envirotech, Inc.

Cusick Matt Exterran Davis Ryan Merrion Oil & Gas Corporation

DeGrado Daniel Vinson Process Controls

Dickerson Jimmy Energy Pilot Project, Carson National Forest and Farmington Field Office, BLM

Fernald Don Enterprise

Fernandez Roger U.S. EPA

Folk Steve Red Willow Production

Frost Gwen ConocoPhillips

Gailey Brian Pure Automation Incorporated

Gantner Bruce ConocoPhillips

Geroy Ivan U.S. Forest Service

Gregoire John ConocoPhillips

Gurvitz Kelsi ConocoPhillips

Hasely Ed Energen Resources

Hauer Kate Chevron

Henning Mike DCP Midstream

Henry Sam Henry Production, Inc

Higgins Garrett CECO

Hinkley Ethan Red Cedar Gathering

Hoadley Jeanne Bureau of Land Management

Horsey Darlene Bureau of Land Management

Johnson Monica ConocoPhillips

Johnson Ernie Newfield

Jonas Alena ConocoPhillips

Jones Mark NMED Air Quality Bureau 

Jordan Douglas Southwestern Energy

Jordan Robert Devon Energy

Kerr Kyle Envirotech, Inc.

Lyon Pat Process Solutions

Maestas Manuel Energen

Marley Chris ConocoPhillips

Matar Rick Williams E&P

McEneny Matt SureFire

McNally Beth Animas Environmental Services

Merilat Carl Merrion Oil & Gas

Miller J.J. U.S. Forest Service

Musick Brad New Mexico Air Quality Bureau

Neukom Cody Heath Consultants

Palmer Gregory Ruby Canyon Engineering

Palmer Kelly US Forest Service

Parce Doug Williams

Payne Gary Dugan Production

Peace Jeff BP

Perry Mickey Cameron

Reidinger John U.S. Forest Service

Robinson Don ICF International

Roe John Dugan Production Corp

Rymerson Richard Bureau of Land Management

San Miguel George Mesa Verde National Park

Schneider Mike NMED

Schultz Brian Devon Energy

Sechler Doug ICF International

Stovall Jeff Williams

Sykes J.R. SureFire

Thompson Philana Merrion Oil & Gas

Tullos Evan Portnoy Environmental

Valdez Miguel U.S. Forest Service

Vigil Fred JAECO

Wagster Cliff Pure Automation, Inc

Wheeldon Sean Process Solutions

Willcox David MPI Warehouse

Williams Curt Compressco

James

EPA Natural Gas STAR Technology Transfer Workshop - Farmington, New Mexico May 11, 2010
Order entered March 15, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00038
- CV BASIL BROWN, Appellant

V. ROBERT HAWKINS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court At La w No. 1

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16C
- 0127



### O RDER Appellant has been declared a vexatious litigant. By letter dated January 29, 2019, we instructed appellant to file, by February 8, 2019, written verification that he has obtained an ord er from the local administrative judge permitting the filing of this appeal. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 11.103(a). By order dated February 13, 2019, the Court granted appellant an extension of time to February 26, 2019. Before the Court is ap pellant’s February 27, 2019 second motion requesting an extension of time to comply and appellee’s objection to the motion. In his motion, appellant asserts that he has been unable to comply because the local administrative judge “has been ill and away fr om the courthouse.” In his objection to the motion , appellee disputes the accuracy of the reason given for a further extension.We GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent that appellant shall file, by March 25,

2019 , written verification that he has obtain ed an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing of this appeal. See id . We caution appellant that no further extension will be granted and that failure to comply will result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice.
/s/ BIL L WHITEHILL JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 196 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 196

 Commending Idaho on winning the bid to host the 2009 Special Olympics 
                          World Winter Games.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 2007

     Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Craig) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
                           and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Commending Idaho on winning the bid to host the 2009 Special Olympics 
                          World Winter Games.

Whereas Special Olympics is an international nonprofit organization that 
        promotes personal development through sports training and competition;
Whereas Special Olympics advances the understanding of intellectual disabilities 
        in the community and the Nation through participation and fellowship;
Whereas Special Olympics serves more than 2,500,000 individuals with 
        intellectual disabilities;
Whereas Special Olympics offers more than 200 programs in over 160 countries;
Whereas Special Olympics offers 30 Olympic-type summer and winter sports to both 
        children and adults with intellectual disabilities;
Whereas Boise, Idaho won the international bid to host the 2009 Special Olympics 
        World Winter Games to be held February 6 through 13, 2009;
Whereas thousands of athletes are expected to compete in the 2009 Special 
        Olympics World Winter Games; and
Whereas the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games will be the largest multi-
        sport event ever held in the State of Idaho: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) applauds the goals and principles of Special Olympics;
            (2) salutes the athletes, coaches, family members, friends, 
        and volunteers that make Special Olympics possible; and
            (3) congratulates the State of Idaho on its selection as 
        the host for the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games.
                                 <all>
```
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1363

LT Case No. 2016-CF-8663-A

_____________________________

BRYAN KEEFE GOGGINS, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

Bryan Keefe Goggins, Jr, Milton, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

October 10, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., BOATWRIGHT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
§ 520.204 If someone does not agree with the Department of Labor's decision on a certificate, can the decision be appealed? ( a ) Any person, applicant, trade union, association, etc. who does not agree with action granting or denying a certificate (pursuant to §§ 520.406 and 520.505) may, within 60 days of that action or such additional time as the Administrator may allow, file with the Administrator a petition for review. The decision of the Administrator becomes final unless such a written request is timely filed.
( b ) Such requests should contain a statement of the additional evidence which the person believes may materially affect the decision and establish that there were reasonable grounds for failure to present such evidence during the original certification process.
( c ) If a request for reconsideration or review is granted, the Administrator, to the extent it is deemed appropriate, may afford other interested persons an opportunity to present data and views.
( d ) The Administrator may conduct an investigation, which may include a hearing, prior to taking any action pursuant to this part.