alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33812-33813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13113]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-286-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes to FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 19, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 16, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the 
following tariff sheets, to become effective June 15, 2000:


[[Page 33813]]



Fifth Revised Volume No. 1

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 2
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 103
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 305
First Revised Sheet No. 606
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 719
Second Revised Sheet No. 1004
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1410
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1414
Second Revised Sheet No. 1502
Third Revised Sheet No. 1703
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 1808
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1900
Second Revised Sheet No. 2002
Second Revised Sheet No. 2003
First Revised Sheet No. 2010
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 2700
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 2703
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 3702
First Revised Sheet No. 3900
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 5000
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 5200

    Koch states that it has revised the above tariff sheets to reflect 
minor housekeeping changes for clarification of Koch's FERC Gas Tariff.
    Koch states that copies of this filing have been served upon Koch's 
customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13113 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32526

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Randy R. BERTRAND Senior Airman (E

- 4)
, U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United S tates Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 14 August 2018

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Ryan Hendricks

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 45 days , r eduction to E

- 1, and a reprimand. Sentence adjudged 2 April 2018 by SpCM convened at Joint Base Andrews
, Maryland

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel R. Davis Younts , USAF. For Appellee: None.
Before HARDING, HUYGEN, and POSCH
, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________

PE R CURIAM : The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Arti cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice
, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).United States v. Bertrand , No. ACM S32526

2 Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
#### § 570.104 General.

Section 12(a) of the Act provides as follows:

No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in commerce any goods produced in an establishment situated in the United States in or about which within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom any oppressive child labor has been employed: *Provided,* That any such shipment or delivery for shipment of such goods by a purchaser who acquired them in good faith in reliance on written assurance from the producer, manufacturer, or dealer that the goods were produced in compliance with the requirements of this section, and who acquired such goods for value without notice of any such violation, shall not be deemed prohibited by this subsection: *And provided further,* That a prosecution and conviction of a defendant for the shipment or delivery for shipment of any goods under the conditions herein prohibited shall be a bar to any further prosecution against the same defendant for shipments or deliveries for shipment of any such goods before the beginning of said prosecution.

In determining the applicability of this provision, consideration of the meaning of the terms used is necessary. These terms are discussed in §§ 570.105 to 570.111, inclusive.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 274 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 

Lewis v. Bayh. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18 (legislative day, JULY 17), 2007 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel 

in the case of Lewis v. Bayh. 

Whereas, in the case of Lewis v. Bayh, Case No. 07–CV– 

0939 (D.D.C.), pending in the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiff has 

named as defendant Senator Evan Bayh; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 

288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend 

the Senate and Members, officers, and employees of the 

Senate in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

SRES 274 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent Senator Evan Bayh in the case of Lewis 

3 v. Bayh. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00166-CV

DIANE BOZANICH RATLEY, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM DAVID RATLEY, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (19-9876-362)

September 23, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

May 8, 2018

v No. 338726

Ingham Circuit Court

VALENTINO LAHRON LEE STEWART, JR., LC No. 14-000463-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and O’BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Valentino Stewart, Jr, appeals by right the trial court’s order denying his 

request for resentencing after a Crosby1 remand hearing. We affirm.

In June 2013, Stewart orchestrated a shooting that resulted in the death of Anthony Kye. 

In Stewart’s previous appeal, this Court affirmed Stewart’s convictions, but determined that

because judicially found facts resulted in an increased minimum sentencing range the case had to 

be remanded for a Crosby hearing under People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 

(2015). People v Stewart, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued 

February 18, 2016 (Docket No. 323969). On remand, the trial court determined that it would 

have imposed the same sentence had it known that the sentencing guidelines were advisory, so it 

denied Stewart’s request for resentencing. The court also rejected Stewart’s lawyer’s argument 

that, under Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), the court 

should reduce Stewart’s sentence because he had been a juvenile when he committed the murder.

On appeal, Stewart argues (1) that he is entitled to be resentenced because his sentence

violates the principle of proportionality and (2) that the trial court erred by failing to consider 

Miller when determining his sentence. However, in cases “where an appellate court remands for 

some limited purpose following an appeal as of right in a criminal case, a second appeal as of 

right, limited to the scope of remand, lies from the decision on remand.” People v Kincade (On 

Remand), 206 Mich App 477, 481; 522 NW2d 880 (1994). Thus, “the scope of the second 

 1 United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005).
-2-

appeal is limited by the scope of the remand.” People v Jones, 394 Mich 434, 435-436; 231 

NW2d 649 (1975).

Here, the remand was for the trial court to determine whether it would have imposed a 

materially different sentence in light of Lockridge and the now-advisory guidelines. See Stewart, 

unpub op at 8. This Court did not “leave open any [other] issue . . . for further resolution on 

remand.” Kincade (On Remand), 206 Mich App at 481-482. Accordingly, Stewart’s challenge 

to the proportionality of his sentence and the trial court’s failure to consider Miller are issues 

outside the scope of the remand order, and we decline to address them.

Affirmed.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien
### Kruger. Brett (OST) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bob, Brett Delta concurs ... Regards, Sascha VanDerBellen, Alexander [sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com] Thursday, February03, 2011 4:56 PM Kruger, Brett (OST); Finamore, Robert (OST) Anita Mosner (anita.mosner@hklaw.com) FW: SAA request



### From: Anita.Mosner@hklaw.com [mailto:Anita.Mosner@hklaw.com] 

### Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:52 PM To: VanDerBelien, Alexander 

### Subject: SAA requestSaschaDOT is reviewing SAA's exemption renewal, and they are aware from our pleading that DL does not intend to pursue its objectionstothat application. Can you please send aquick email to Bob Finamore and Brett Kruger which confirms our understanding? The don't need anythingfancy - Ithink a simple concurrence tothis message would suffice. Their email addresses are: brett.kruger@dot.gov; robert.finamore@dot.gov Manythanks
.. Anita 

### Anita Mosner 

# IHolland & 

### Knight Partner 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 

# IWashington DC 20006 T: +1.202.419.2604 

# IF: +1.202.955.5564 M: +1.202.378.0833 anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

# Iwww.hklaw.com Add to address book

To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we inform you that anytax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended orwritten by us to be used, and cannot be used byyou or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.

1
### Ground-water resources and geology of Niobrara County, Wyoming, with a section on chemical quality of the ground water

By: Harold A. WhitcombT. Ray Cummings

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1788

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EX-10.(b)



 Exhibit 10(b) 

Summary of 
 2015
Non-Employee Director Compensation and Stock Ownership Guidelines 
 On February 20, 2015, the Board of Directors of Alcoa Inc.
(“Alcoa”) approved increases in the (a) annual cash retainer fee for non-employee directors from $230,000 to $240,000, (b) annual fee to serve as Lead Director from $11,000 to $25,000, and (c) stock ownership guidelines for
non-employee directors from $400,000 to $750,000. Each fee increase is effective as of January 1, 2015. The remaining components of non-employee director compensation remain unchanged and are described in Alcoa’s proxy statement for its
2015 annual meeting of shareholders. 
 Under the stock ownership guidelines, each director is required to invest 50% of his or her retainer
fee in Alcoa common stock or in Alcoa deferred share units under Alcoa’s 2005 Deferred Fee Plan for Directors, until the value of the director’s investment in Alcoa common stock and/or deferred share units reaches $750,000. The $750,000
stock ownership level must be retained until the director retires from the Board of Directors. On the first Monday in December of each year, the value of each director’s investment in Alcoa common stock and/or deferred share units will be
determined, and each director will be advised whether he or she is required to invest or defer 50% of the retainer fee in Alcoa common stock or deferred share units for the coming year. 

Non-Employee Director Compensation 

(Effective January 1, 2015) 
  

					
	Annual Compensation Element	  	Amount	 
	 Retainer for Non-Employee Directors
	  	$	240,000	  
	 Lead Director Fee
	  	$	25,000	  
	 Audit Committee Chair Fee (includes Audit Committee Member Fee)
	  	$	27,500	  
	 Audit Committee Member Fee
	  	$	11,000	  
	 Compensation and Benefits Committee Chair Fee
	  	$	20,000	  
	 Governance and Nominating Committee Chair Fee
	  	$	16,500	  
	 Public Issues Committee Chair Fee
	  	$	16,500
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 16, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00450-CV

DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY AKA DOV K. AVNI, Appellant

V.

DOSOHS I, LTD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-53721

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

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed March 7, 2014. On July 

17, 2014, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. 

The record reflects appellant filed a motion on April 7, 2014. The substance 

of the motion, however, does not seek to alter the final summary judgment signed 

March 7, 2014. The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the 
2

judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a post-judgment motion seeking to 

alter the trial court’s judgment.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed on June 5, 2014. A motion 

for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, 

files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1, but within the 

fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of

time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (1997) (construing the 

predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 

fifteen-day period provided by Rule 26.3. 

Appellant has filed no response to appellee’s motion to dismiss that 

demonstrates this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the 

appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise.

 

1 Appellant’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law filed March 17, 2014, does not 

operate to extend the appellate timetable in this context.
#### § 778.413 Guaranty must be based on rates specified in contract.

The guaranty of pay must be “based on the rate so specified,” in the contract. If the contract specifies a regular rate of $5 and an overtime rate of $7.50 and guarantees pay for 50 hours and the maximum hours standard is 40 hours, the amount of the guaranty must be $275, if it is to be based on the rates so specified. A guaranty of $290 in such a situation would not, obviously, be based on the rates specified in the contract. Moreover, a contract which provides a variety of different rates for shift differentials, arduous or hazardous work, stand-by time, piece-rate incentive bonuses, commissions or the like in addition to a specified regular rate and a specified overtime rate with a guaranty of pay of, say, $290 from all sources would not qualify under this section, since the guaranty of pay in such a case is not based on the regular and overtime rates specified in the contract.

[46 FR 7318, Jan. 23, 1981]
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Vocational Rehabilitation /
              - 12.7 Vocational Rehabilitation—State Agencies on Order of Selection

## Table 12.7: Vocational Rehabilitation—State Agencies on Order of Selection: 2008 through 2012

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The
Board of Directors
Summa Industries:

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the Company's 1984 and 1991 Stock Option Plans, filed on
April 15, 1993, and to file numbers 333-20835, 333-68921, 333-68981, 333-87692, 333-35163, 333-38415,
333-68983, 333-78873, 333-87690, 333-11571, of Summa Industries and subsidiaries of our reports dated October 16, 2003 relating to the 2003
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Los
Angeles, California
October 29, 2003

---

QuickLinks
§ 452.135 Complaints of members. ( a ) Any member of a labor organization may file a complaint with the Office of Labor-Management Standards alleging that there have been violations of requirements of the Act concerning the election of officers, delegates, and representatives (including violations of election provisions of the organization's constitution and bylaws that are not inconsistent with the Act.).[57] The complaint may not be filed until one of the two following conditions has been met: ( 1 ) The member must have exhausted the remedies available to him under the constitution and bylaws of the organization and its parent body, or
( 2 ) he must have invoked such remedies without obtaining a final decision within three calendar months after invoking them.
( b ) If the member obtains an unfavorable final decision within three calendar months after invoking his available remedies, he must file his complaint within one calendar month after obtaining the decision. If he has not obtained a final decision within three calendar months, he has the option of filing his complaint or of waiting until he has exhausted the available remedies within the organization. In the latter case, if the final decision is ultimately unfavorable, he will have one month in which to file his complaint.
Footnotes -
452.135
[57] Act, sec. 402(a).
#### § 2580.412-18 Naming of insureds.

Since section 13 is intended to protect funds or other property of all plans involved, bonds under this section shall allow for enforcement or recovery by those persons usually authorized to act for such plans in such matters. In most cases, the naming of the plan or plans as insured will provide for such recovery. Where it is not clear that such recovery will be provided, however, a rider shall be attached to the bond or separate agreement made among the parties concerned to make certain that any reimbursement collected under the bond will be for the benefit and use of the plan suffering a loss. Such rider or agreement shall always be required as respects any bond (a) where the employer or employee organization is first named joint insured with one or more plans, or (b) two or more plans are named joint insureds under a single bond with the first named acting for all insureds for the purpose of orderly servicing of the bond.