alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2197-038; North Carolina]


Yadkin, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

May 25, 2000.
    An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review. 
The EA analyzes the environmental effects of a request to amend the 
license to authorize upgrades of turbines and generators at three of 
the four developments of the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project located on 
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River in Montgomery, Stanly, Davidson, Rowan, and 
Davie Counties, North Carolina. The Yadkin Hydroelectric Project 
contains the following reservoirs: High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows 
(Badin) and Falls.
    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Energy Projects, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The proposed upgrade would not 
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment. Copies of the EA assistance. Copies are also 
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public 
Reference Room located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, 
DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371.
    Anyone may file comments on the EA. The public, federal and state 
resource agencies are encouraged to provide comments. All written 
comments must be filed within 30 days of the issuance date of this 
notice shown above. Send an original and eight copies of all comments 
marked with the project number P-2197-038 to: The Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 
20426. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact 
R. Feller at telephone: (202) 219-2796 or e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91e3f0f8fff4e3bff7f4fdfdf4e3d1f7f4e3f2bff7f4f5bfe4e2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bac8dbd3d4dfc894dcdfd6d6dfc8fadcdfc8d994dcdfde94cfc9">[email protected]</span></a>

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13620 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00968

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF Patricia M. RIPLEY , Deceased

From the Probate Court No

. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PC

- 1990 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees Robert Ripley and Mary Guzman recover their costs of this ap peal from appellant John Ripley.

SIGNED September 4, 2019.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 150.608 Who is responsible for ensuring that the personnel use or wear protective equipment and are trained in its use? ( a ) Each deepwater port operator must ensure that all personnel wear personal protective equipment when within designated work areas.
( b ) Each deepwater port operator must ensure that: ( 1 ) All personnel engaged in the operation are trained in the proper use, limitations, and maintenance of the personal protective equipment specified by this subpart;
( 2 ) The equipment is maintained and used or worn as required by this subpart; and
( 3 ) The equipment is made available and on hand for all personnel engaged in the operation.
FY 2013 State Plan Guidance 

Attachment B 

INTRASTATE (IFF) FUNDING FORMULA REQUIREMENTS
 

Each State IFF submittal must demonstrate that the requirements in Sections 305(a)(2)(C) 

have been met: 

OAA, Sec. 305(a)(2) 

“States shall, 

(C) in consultation with area agencies, in accordance with guidelines issued by the 

Assistant Secretary, and using the best available data, develop and publish for review 

and comment a formula for distribution within the State of funds received under this title 

that takes into account--

 (i) the geographical distribution of older individuals in the State; and 

 (ii) the distribution among planning and service areas of older individuals with greatest 

economic need and older individuals with greatest social need, with particular attention 

to low-income minority older individuals.” 

	 For purposes of the IFF, “best available data” is the most recent census data (year 2010). 

More recent data of equivalent quality available in the State may be considered. 

	 As required by Section 305(d) of the OAA, the IFF revision request includes: a 

descriptive Statement; a numerical Statement; and a list of the data used (by planning and 

service area). 

	 The request also includes information on how the proposed formula will affect funding to 

each planning and service area. 

	 States may use a base amount in their IFFs to ensure viable funding across the entire 

state.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 658 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the former chief executive officers 

of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should not receive lavish severance 

packages at taxpayer expense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the former chief 

executive officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should 

not receive lavish severance packages at taxpayer expense. 

Whereas, on September 7, 2008, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home 

Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were placed 

into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance 

Agency; 

Whereas the Department of the Treasury has announced that 

up to $200,000,000,000 of tax dollars will be invested in 

senior preferred stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 

with billions more lent to the companies via the GovernVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:43 Sep 12, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR658.IS SR658

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 658 IS 

ment Sponsored Entity Credit Facility, and invested in 

mortgage backed securities issued by the companies; 

Whereas the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator, has all the rights, titles, powers, and privileges of 

the companies and of any stockholder, officer, or director 

of the companies, and has been charged with the duty to 

operate the companies; 

Whereas media reports indicate that the former chief executive officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be paid 

severance packages worth a combined $24,000,000 in 

pay, bonuses, and benefits; 

Whereas these chief executive officers presided over Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac in the time that led to a taxpayerfunded rescue and Federal takeover, and should not be 

rewarded; and 

Whereas the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has 

a duty both to the stability of the financial markets, and 

to the best interest of the American taxpayer, whose dollars are being invested in the companies: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) the former chief executive officers who pre3 sided over the Federal National Mortgage Associa4 tion (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan 

5 Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) during the pe6 riod that led to a Federal takeover should not be re7 warded with lavish severance packages paid for by 

8 American taxpayers; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 658 IS 

1 (2) the severance packages of both former chief 

2 executive officers should be carefully examined and 

3 eliminated or reduced to an appropriate level. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Argued and submitted January 31,

cases A68381-84 remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed August 26, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MICHAEL LEE TAYLOR, *Appellant.*

(90CR706, 90CR792, 90CR838, 90CR839, 90CR854, 90CR830; CA A68379 (Control), A68380, A68381, A68382, A68383, A68384)

(Cases Consolidated)

836 P2d 755

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Brenda J Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Stephanie S. Andrus, Certified Law Student, Salem.

*77Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

DEITS, J.

*78DEITS, J.

In these cases, which are consolidated for appeal, defendant assigns error to the imposition of jail time as a condition of probation on his misdemeanor convictions. We remand for resentencing.

Defendant was convicted of assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160; criminal mischief in the second degree, ORS 164.354; driving while suspended, ORS 811.182; failure to appear on a traffic offense, ORS 810.360; and two counts of driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. He received jail terms of 180 days for the assault; 90 days for criminal mischief; 10 days for driving while suspended; 30 days for failure to appear; and 47 days for the two DUII offenses. All jail terms were to be served consecutively,

Defendant contends that he cannot be required to serve a jail term for misdemeanors committed after November 1, 1989. ORS 137.540 provides the statutory authority to impose a jail sentence as a condition of probation. Under the version of the statute enacted in 1989 and in effect at the time of defendant’s sentencing,1 there was no provision that allowed a jail sentence as a condition of probation for a misdemeanor conviction. *State v. Wold, 105*Or App *158, 803*P2d 782 (1991). Therefore, we agree that the trial court erred in imposing jail terms for assault, criminal mischief, driving while suspended and failure to appear, and we remand for resentencing on those offenses.

The trial court did not err, however, in imposing jail terms as conditions of probation for the convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants. Notwithstanding ORS 137.540(2), the specific requirement under ORS 813.020(2) that DUII offenders serve at least 48 hours imprisonment or perform community service permits imposition of a jail term as a sentence or as a condition of probation for that offense. *State v. Oary, 112*Or App 296, 829 P2d 90 (1992). Therefore, we affirm the sentences for the two DUII convictions.

Cases A68384, A68381, A68382 and A68383 remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1

 ORS 137.540(2)(a) has since been amended to apply to misdemeanors. Or Laws 1991, ch 196, § 2.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.509 Vermilion River. ( a ) The draw of the S82 bridge, mile 22.4 at Perry, shall open on signal; except that, from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.
( b ) The draws of the following bridges shall open on signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 10 a.m. the draws shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given: ( 1 ) S14 bridge, mile 25.4 at Abbeville.
( 2 ) S14 Bypass bridge, mile 26.0 at Abbeville.
( 3 ) Vermilion Parish bridge, mile 34.2 near Milton.
( 4 ) S92 bridge, mile 37.6 at Milton.
( c ) The draws of the following bridge shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given: ( 1 ) S733, mile 41.0 at Eloi Broussard.
( 2 ) S3073 bridge, mile 44.9 at New Flanders.
( 3 ) S182 bridge, mile 49.0 at Lafayette.
( d ) During the advance notice periods, the draws of the bridges listed in this section shall open on less than four hours notice for an emergency and shall open on signal should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD 08-83-05, 49 FR 31868, Aug. 9, 1984; CGD 8-85-13, 50 FR 40832, Oct. 7, 1985]
U.S.Department of Transportation 

### 5b Office ofthe Secretary ofTransportation Subject: Notice ofCommunication in Docket: DOT-OST-OST-2012-0029 Special Rules for Ronald Reag Airport (beyond-perimeter ex

From: Secretary Ray LaHood Date: May 8, 2012

To: Chief, Dockets In accordance wi Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), I amreporting the following communication. On May 4, 2012, during a telephone conversation withCongresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson ofTexas, the Congresswoman raised the subject of the Department's proceeding to allocate eight slot exemptions to new entrant and/or limited incumbent carriers for operations betweenRonald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) and airports beyond the 1,250-mile DCA perimeter. The Congresswoman expressed her support for the application filed by Southwest Airlines for nonstop service between DCA and Austin. I informed the Congresswoman that, while I appreciated her interest in this case, I could not comment on its merits because the proceeding was under active consideration by the Department.
Please place this memorandum inthe appropriateDocket.

cc: Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson
September 18, 2012

 U.S. Department of Education

 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ

 Washington, DC 20202-4537

Subject: Written comments regarding the number of burden hours required for Needs Assessment, 

Workplan, and Evaluation Guide for Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers.

Dear Sirs:

Please accept the following written comments as support of the TACE program and their exemplary work.

 The Illinois Department of Human Services’ Division of Rehabilitation Services and the Staff 

Development Section have a long-standing partnership with TACE 5 and consider them to be an 

invaluable asset and resource in the development and delivery of curriculum and training materials to 

our vocational rehabilitation staff. 

 The Needs Assessment, Workplan, and Evaluation Guide for the TACE Program is an extensive 

document and requires staff at Regional Centers to devote a great deal of their time and resources to 

reviewing previous performance and compliance reports, conducting needs assessments, developing 

specific workplans complete with activities, goals and objectives for each state agency, creating surveys 

to evaluate their effectiveness, and reporting the results.

 It is difficult to know if the reported annual number of burden hours (81.7) is an accurate estimated 

average amount of time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of the necessary information.

 As technology and methods of communication continue to advance, it is imperative for state and federal 

agencies to strive for streamlining systems of gathering and reporting data and maximizing their time for 

developing curriculum and materials to assist vocational rehabilitation staff in meeting the employment 

needs of individuals with disabilities.

Please feel free to contact me at 217.557.0401 if I can provide additional information or be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Kris Smith

Kristine A. Smith, Acting Director

Illinois Department of Human Services

Division of Rehabilitation Services
Exhibit
10.32





[FM
Services Company Letterhead]








November
30, 2007








B. M.
Rankin, Jr.


300
Crescent Court, Suite 875


Dallas,
Texas  75201





Dear Mr.
Rankin:





The
purpose of this letter is to confirm the automatic renewal of your Consulting
Agreement dated January 1, 1991, as amended (the “Agreement”).





Your
contract will automatically renew for an additional one-year period beginning
January 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2008.  All other terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.





Please
confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding with respect
to this matter by signing both originals of this letter and returning one to
me.





Very
truly yours,





/s/
Richard C. Adkerson





Richard
C. Adkerson


Chairman
of the Board


FM
Services Company











AGREED
TO AND ACCEPTED








BY:           /s/ B.M. Rankin,
Jr.                                                      12/10/07


B. M. Rankin,
Jr.                                                                Date
Submitted on record and briefs January 20,

dismissal of petition reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed February 10, 1993

#### ROLANDO DORSEY GOMEZ, *Appellant, v.*Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(92C10655, 92C10737; CA A74735 (Control), A75053)

846 P2d 448

J. Henry Langer, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia Linder, Solicitor General, and Stephanie S. Andrus, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*161PER CURIAM

Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of *habeas corpus*on April 10,1992, alleging that he had been denied treatment for a serious mental condition. He filed a second petition on April 24, 1992, alleging that he is confined in frigid quarters, causing him to suffer ongoing mental and physical deterioration as a result of which he has become ill on a number of occasions.

Both petitions were dismissed because they did not allege facts sufficient to invoke *habeas corpus*jurisdiction.

The state concedes the trial court erred in dismissing the April 10 petition. There was no error with respect to the order on the April 24 petition.

Dismissal of April 10, 1992, petition reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Morton Industrial Group, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-68927 and 333-69575) on Form S-8 of Morton Industrial
Group, Inc. of our report dated March 25, 2002, except as to note 2 which is as of November 1, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Morton Industrial
Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows and the consolidated
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on
Form 10-K of Morton Industrial Group, Inc. Our report refers to a change in the accounting for derivatives and hedging activities.

KPMG
LLP

Indianapolis,
Indiana

March 25,
2002, except as to note 2 which is as of November 1, 2002

---

QuickLinks
Developmental Disabilities Councils (DDC) FY 2015 Estimated 

Allocation for Awards to States/Territories

Disclaimer: Once Congress enacts an appropriation for FY 2015, 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 Developmental 

Disabilities 

Councils (DDC)

Alabama $1,286,594 

Alaska $453,609 

Arizona $1,399,118 

Arkansas $755,771 

California $6,525,724 

Colorado $863,372 

Connecticut $684,571 

Delaware $453,609 

District of Columbia $453,609 

Florida $3,515,346 

Georgia $2,050,742 

Hawaii $453,609 

Idaho $453,609 

Illinois $2,488,609 

Indiana $1,415,494 

Iowa $733,450 

Kansas $582,257 

Kentucky $1,201,182 

Louisiana $1,334,204 

Maine $453,609 

Maryland $955,124 

Massachusetts $1,326,442 

Michigan $2,450,823 

Minnesota $971,358 

Mississippi $910,365 

Missouri $1,300,138 

Montana $453,609 

Nebraska $453,609 

Nevada $471,142 

New Hampshire $453,609 

New Jersey $1,499,696 

New Mexico $481,580 

New York $4,126,430 

North Carolina $2,007,183 

North Dakota $453,609 

Ohio $2,708,124 

Oklahoma $850,049 
Developmental Disabilities Councils (DDC) FY 2015 Estimated 

Allocation for Awards to States/Territories

State/Territory Developmental 

Disabilities 

Councils (DDC)

Oregon $785,303 

Pennsylvania $2,972,147 

Rhode Island $453,609 

South Carolina $1,078,006 

South Dakota $453,609 

Tennessee $1,432,620 

Texas $4,816,568 

Utah $640,525 

Vermont $453,609 

Virginia $1,422,918 

Washington $1,188,436 

West Virginia $743,743 

Wisconsin $1,230,361 

Wyoming $453,609 

American Samoa $236,227 

Guam $236,227 

Northern Mariana Islands $236,227 

Puerto Rico $2,375,051 

Virgin Islands $236,227 

TOTAL $70,876,000
§ 9.35 Administrative Review Board proceedings. ( a ) *Authority* — ( 1 ) *General.* The ARB has jurisdiction to hear and decide in its discretion appeals pursuant to § 9.31(b)(2) concerning questions of law and fact from determinations of the Administrator issued under § 9.31 and from decisions of Administrative Law Judges issued under § 9.34. In considering the matters within the scope of its jurisdiction, the ARB acts as the authorized representative of the Secretary and acts fully on behalf of the Secretary concerning such matters.
( 2 ) *Limit on scope of review.* ( i ) The ARB will not have jurisdiction to pass on the validity of any provision of this part. The ARB is an appellate body and will decide cases properly before it on the basis of substantial evidence contained in the entire record before it. The ARB will not receive new evidence into the record.
( ii ) The Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended, does not apply to proceedings under this part. Accordingly, for any proceeding under this part, the Administrative Review Board will have no authority to award attorney fees and/or other litigation expenses pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
( b ) *Decisions.* The ARB's final decision will be issued within 90 days of the receipt of the petition for review and will be served upon all parties by mail to the last known address and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge (in cases involving an appeal from an Administrative Law Judge's decision).
( c ) *Orders.* If the ARB concludes that the contractor has violated this part, the final order will order action to remedy the violation, which may include hiring each affected employee in a position on the contract for which the employee is qualified, together with compensation (including lost wages), terms, conditions, and privileges of that employment. Where the Administrator has sought imposition of debarment, the ARB will determine whether an order imposing debarment is appropriate. The ARB's order under this section is subject to discretionary review by the Secretary as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).
( d ) *Costs.* If a final order finding the successor contractor violated this part is issued, the ARB may assess against the contractor a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all costs (not including attorney fees) and expenses reasonably incurred by the aggrieved employee(s) in the proceeding. This amount will be awarded in addition to any unpaid wages or other relief due under § 9.23(b).
( e ) *Finality.* The decision of the Administrative Review Board will become the final order of the Secretary in accordance with Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order), which provides for discretionary review of such orders by the Secretary.