alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1337]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Currently 
Approved Information Collection: RI 25-41

AGENCY:  Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget a request for review of a currently approved 
information collection. RI 25-41, Initial Certification of Full-Time 
School Attendance, is used to determine whether a child is unmarried 
and a full-time student in a recognized school. OPM must determine this 
in order to pay survivor annuity benefits to children who are age 18 or 
older.
    Comments are particularly invited on: whether this information is 
necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of 
Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; 
whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of 
information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use 
of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Approximately 1,200 RI 25-41 forms are completed annually. It takes 
approximately 90 minutes to complete the form. The annual burden is 
1,800 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f121d0b1010121a063f100f1251181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf6f9eff4f4f6fee2dbf4ebf6b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES:  Comments on this proposal should be received on or before March 
21, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Send or deliver comments to--Ronald W. Melton, Chief, 
Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349, 
Washington, DC 20415.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: 
 Phyllis R. Pinkney, Management Analyst, Budget and Administrative 
Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-1337 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 130222 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130222 COA: 266043 Oakland CC: 97-150559-FC CLEARTHUR HARDY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, 2005 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

d0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0406

MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED, MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL 

INFORMATION CENTER, TROUT UNLIMITED EARTHWORKS, AND 

AMERICAN RIVERS,

Plaintiffs / Appellees,

v.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

Defendant / Appellant,

and

TINTINA MONTANA INC., 

Defendant / Appellant,

and

MEAGHER COUNTY AND BROADWATER COUNTY

Defendant / Appellant,

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANTS’ JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEFS

Upon consideration of Defendant/Appellant Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (“DEQ”) and Defendant/Appellant Tintina Montana, 

Inc.’s (“Tintina”) (collectively, “Joint Movants”) unopposed motion for a 30-day 

extension of time, and good cause appearing, Joint Movants are granted an 

extension of time to and including February 24, 2022, within which to prepare, 

01/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0406
2

serve, and file their reply briefs. Defendant-Intervenor/Appellants Broadwater and 

Meagher Counties’ reply briefs are also due February 24, 2023. 

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 17 2023
§ 778.201 Overtime premiums—general. ( a ) Certain premium payments made by employers for work in excess of or outside of specified daily or weekly standard work periods or on certain special days are regarded as overtime premiums. In such case, the extra compensation provided by the premium rates need not be included in the employee's regular rate of pay for the purpose of computing overtime compensation due under section 7(a) of the Act. Moreover, under section 7(h) this extra compensation may be credited toward the overtime payments required by the Act.
( b ) The three types of extra premium payments which may thus be treated as overtime premiums for purposes of the Act are outlined in section 7(e) (5), (6), and (7) of the Act as set forth in § 778.200(a). These are discussed in detail in the sections following.
( c ) Section 7(h) of the Act specifically states that the extra compensation provided by these three types of payments may be credited toward overtime compensation due under section 7(a) for work in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard. No other types of remuneration for employment may be so credited.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM LUCAS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 106 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Protection and Advocacy (P and A) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2016 Estimated Allocation

4/1/2015

Disclaimer: Once Congress enacts an appropriation for FY 2016 and

after ACL has updated the data used in the formula for determining

award amounts, the allotments will be adjusted accordingly.

The final State allotments will be provided to the grantee after a final

appropriations bill is passed by Congress.

State/Territory

Protection and

Advocacy(P&A)

Alabama $611,286

Alaska $384,693

Arizona $667,766

Arkansas $395,297

California $3,251,660

Colorado $453,751

Connecticut $384,693

Delaware $384,693

District of Columbia $384,693

Florida $1,876,563

Georgia $1,042,109

Hawaii $384,693

Idaho $384,693

Illinois $1,239,284

Indiana $747,116

Iowa $384,693

Kansas $384,693

Kentucky $567,646

Louisiana $555,926

Maine $384,693

Maryland $463,837

Massachusetts $598,312

Michigan $1,214,505

Minnesota $507,451

Mississippi $418,974

Missouri $679,607

Montana $384,693

Nebraska $384,693

Nevada $384,693

New Hampshire $384,693

New Jersey $734,097

New Mexico $384,693

New York $1,782,533

North Carolina $1,081,402

North Dakota $384,693

Ohio $1,299,503

Oklahoma $406,558

Oregon $413,177

Pennsylvania $1,333,109

Rhode Island $384,693

South Carolina $569,401

South Dakota $384,693

Tennessee $734,871

Texas $2,393,599

Utah $384,693

Vermont $384,693

Virginia $723,734

Washington $618,905

West Virginia $384,693

Wisconsin $625,660

Wyoming $384,693

AmericanSamoa $205,808

Guam $205,808

Northern Mariana Islands $205,808

Puerto Rico $844,088

Virgin Islands $205,808

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. $205,808

TOTAL $37,959,320
#### § 784.136 “Shore” activities exempted under section 13(b)(4).

Section 13(b)(4) provides an exemption from the overtime but not from the minimum wage provisions of the Act for “any employee employed in the canning, processing, marketing, freezing, curing, storing, packing for shipment, or distributing” aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life or any byproducts thereof. Orginally, all these operations were contained in the exemption provided by section 13(a)(5) but, as a result of amendments, first “canning”, in 1949, and then the other operations in 1961, were transferred to section 13(b)(4). (See the discussion in §§ 784.102 to 784.105.) These activities are “shore” activities and in general have to do with the movement of the perishable aquatic products to a nonperishable state or to points of consumption (S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 33).
§ 97.52 Collection of amounts due. ( a ) Any funds paid to a grantee in excess of the amount to which the grantee is finally determined to be entitled under the terms of the award constitute a debt to the Federal Government. If not paid within a reasonable period after demand, the Federal agency may reduce the debt by: ( 1 ) Making an adminstrative offset against other requests for reimbursements,
( 2 ) Withholding advance payments otherwise due to the grantee, or
( 3 ) Other action permitted by law.
( b ) Except where otherwise provided by statutes or regulations, the Federal agency will charge interest on an overdue debt in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards (4 CFR Ch. II). The date from which interest is computed is not extended by litigation or the filing of any form of appeal.
An official website of the United States government          

Here’s how you know

**Official websites use .gov**A              **.gov** website belongs to an official government              organization in the United States.            

**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A              **lock** (              LockLocked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.            

Skip to main contentSkip to main navigationGet instructions for navigating this site

* * Announcements

A - Z Browse

- OAM Home
- Materials
- Activity Ideas
- Social Media
- History   - OAM History
  - 2023
  - 2022
  - 2021
  - 2020
  - 2019
  - 2018
  - Earlier Years

Go to ACL.gov * *

# Older Americans Month 2018 Logos

## Logos

Download the 2018 logo in various formats for online use as well as professional print products. You may use the following files, intact, to promote Older Americans Month. All other rights, including the creation of derivative works, are reserved by the Administration for Community Living.

**File Type: .jpg**Black  |  Color for Print (CMYK)

**File Type: .eps**Black  |  Color  |  White

## Logo in Spanish

**File Type: .jpg**Black  |  Color for Print (CMYK)  |  Color for Online (RGB)

**File Type: .eps**Black  |  Color  |  White

**File Type: .png**Color (RGB)

*Last modified on 02/19/2019*

 

#### OAM 2018

                            - Posters
                            - Badges
                            - Button and Banner
                            - Social Media
                            - Activity Ideas
                            - Resources
                            - Materials
                            - Sample Article:  DOCX (61KB)
                            - Sample Proclamation:  DOCX (130KB)

 

**         Back to Top    

## 

 

## What We Do and Why We Do It

ACL was created around the fundamental principle that all people, regardless of age or disability, should be able to live independently and fully participate fully in their communities. Learn more about community living.

 

* *Facebook* *YouTube  X* *LinkedIn* *Share on Other Platforms

 

## Site Support

-  Home 
-  Accessibility 
-  Disclaimers 
-  Contact Us 
-  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
-  Privacy Policy 
-  Site Map 
-  Viewers & Players 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

## Other ACL Sites

-  Disability Assistance and Information Line  
-  Eldercare Locator 
-  ElderJustice.acl.gov 
-  LongTermCare.gov 
-  OlderIndians.gov 

## Related Sites

-  Grants.gov 
-  HHS.gov 
-  No Fear Act  
-  Plain Writing (on HHS.gov) 
-  USA.gov 
-  WhiteHouse.gov 
-  Vote.gov 

## **Sign up for ACL Updates**

Subscribe ** **

*Advancing independence, integration, and inclusion throughout life*

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living
#### § 110.38 Edgartown Harbor, Mass.

An area in the inner harbor easterly of the project channel and south of Chappaquiddick Point bounded as follows: Beginning at latitude 41°23′19′′, longitude 70°30′32′′; thence southeasterly along the shore to latitude 41°22′52′′, longitude 70°30′12′′; thence 287°30′ 1,600 feet; thence 327°30′, 700 feet; thence 359° true, 800 feet; thence 24°15′ approximately 900 feet to the point of beginning.

[CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by USCG-2019-0952, 88 FR 16187, Mar. 16, 2023]
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF

FRANCIS CASIMIR KAJENCKI,

DECEASED §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00109

- CV

Appeal from

Probate Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2008

- P01293 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Anthony Kajencki , is attempting to appeal from a n order authorizing payment
of attorney’s fees and expenses. W e dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and
interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. De Ayala v. Mackie , 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex.

2006); Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corporation , 39 S.W.3d 1 91, 195 (Tex. 2001); T EX .C IV .P RAC .&

R E M .C ODE A NN . § 51.014 (West Supp. 2017)(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory

orders). The Estates Code provides that a final order issued by a probate court is appealable to
the court of appeals. T EX .E STAT ES C ODE A NN

. § 32.001(c)(West 2014 ). In a probate proceeding,
an order is final and appealable before the entire proceeding is concluded if the order disposes of
a discrete phase of the litigation or if a statute expressly provides a specific type of orde r is
appealable. De Ayala , 193 S.W.3d at 579. An order which does not end a discrete phase of the- 2

-

probate proceedings, but only “sets the stage” for the resolution of all proceedings, is interlocutory.

De Ayala
, 193 S.W.3d at 579.
The notice of appeal identifies an order signed by the Probate Court No. 1 on June 8, 2018
approving payment of expenses as the subject of this appeal. The order in question approves the
application of Carreon & Beltran, PLLC, for payment of attorney’s fe es and expenses from
December 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018 in the total sum of $840.06. The Probate Code does
not expressly provide that this type of order is appealable. Further, the order granting the
application for payment of attorney’s fees and ex penses during this four

- month period does not
indicate that it ended a discrete phase of the proceeding.

We directed t he Clerk of the Court to send Appellant a letter stating that the Court intended
to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final judgment or appealable order
unless he responded within ten days and established grounds for the appeal to continue. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(a). Appellant has not filed any response to the inquiry

. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(a), (c).

July 31, 2018 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ. Rodriguez, J., not participating
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 245 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 245

Congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 
                 NCAA Division I Softball Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 2007

     Mr. Kyl (for himself and Mr. McCain) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 
                 NCAA Division I Softball Championship.

Whereas on June 6, 2007, the University of Arizona (UA) Wildcats of Tucson, 
        Arizona, won the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association Women's 
        College World Series Softball Championship by defeating the University 
        of Tennessee Lady Volunteers by a score of 5 to 0, winning their 8th 
        title since 1991;
Whereas, in the championship game, UA pitcher Taryne Mowatt set a Women's 
        College World Series record by pitching 60 innings and was named the 
        tournament's Most Outstanding Player;
Whereas Kristie Fox, Jenae Leles, and Caitlin Lowe were selected to be on the 
        all-tournament team;
Whereas the UA Wildcats completed the season with a 50-14-1 record, climbing 
        from the loser's bracket to emerge victorious; and
Whereas Coach Mike Candrea has taken the UA Wildcats to the Women's College 
        World Series 19 times over the last 20 years, and won 8 national 
        championship titles: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates the University of Arizona Wildcats for 
        winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Women's Softball Championship; 
        and
            (2) recognizes all the players, coaches, and support staff 
        who were instrumental in this achievement.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105·3901
 

March 11, 2010 

In Reply AIR-3 

Refer To: SE 98-01 

Jon Boyer 

Environmental Manager 

High Desert Power Project, LLC 

I9000 Perimeter Road 

Victorville, CA 92394 

Re: Final Revised PSD Permit for the High Desert Power Project (SE 98-01) 

Dear Mr. Boyer: 

In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.7401 et seq.), the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the application materials submitted 

by the High Desert Power Project (HDPP) to revise its existing Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit. After reviewing the materials, EPA drafted proposed revised PSD 

permit conditions and a public notice of our decision to allow the alternative startup scenario and 

other minor changes as the conditions in the proposed revised PSD permit, if finalized. 

A request for public comment regarding EPA's proposed action and proposed revised 

PSD permit was published on February 6, 2010, in the San Bernardino Sun, Victorville Daily 

Press, and EI Mojave. EPA also sent the public notice requesting comments on our proposed 

action to several parties, including those specified in 40 CFR Part 124. EPA made the proposed 

revised PSD permit and Ambient Air Quality Impact Report available at the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District, the Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto Public Libraries, on 

EPA's website, and at our Region IX office in San Francisco, California. 

EPA received no comments regarding the proposed action and revised PSD permit. The 

final revised PSD permit is enclosed. This document, along with other documents relevant to the 

final revised PSD permit, and the index for the entire administrative record are available online 

at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID# EPA-R09-0AR-201 0-0129), and on our website at 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html#psd. 

This final revised PSD permit shall be effective on the date of issuance pursuant to 40 

CFR 124.15(b)(3). If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Leslie 

Ramirez of our Permits office at (415) 972-3978. 

Pnnred on Recycled Paper 
Sincerely, 

/ 7 

!f;litt Iln) 

i 

rLbO~~ ]Ord'! t 

Director, Air Division 

Enclosure 

cc: Alan De Salvio, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District 

Mike Tollstrup, California Air Resources Board 

Mary Dyas, California Energy Commission
#### BALTIMORE & OHIO RD CO v P U C PENNSYLVANIA RD CO v P U C

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 21636 & 21647.

Decided June 4, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
§ 105.500 General. ( a ) *Applicability.* The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal must comply with this subpart when receiving a cruise ship or tenders from cruise ships.
( b ) *Purpose.* This subpart establishes cruise ship terminal screening programs within the Facility Security Plans to ensure that prohibited items are not present within the secure areas that have been designated for screened persons, baggage, and personal effects, and are not brought onto cruise ships interfacing with the terminal.
( c ) *Compliance dates.* ( 1 ) No later than October 15, 2018, cruise ship terminal owners or operators must submit, for each terminal, a terminal screening program (TSP) that conforms with the requirements in § 105.505 to the cognizant COTP for review and approval.
( 2 ) No later than April 18, 2019, each cruise ship terminal owner or operator must operate in compliance with an approved TSP and this subpart.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Causes of Absence for Men and for Women in Four Cotton Mills

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Causes of Absence for Men and for Women in Four Cotton Mills : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 69*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1929,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5378,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER