alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        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** (
              Locked 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 Search
 OAM HomeMaterialsActivity IdeasSocial MediaHistoryOAM History202320222021202020192018Earlier Years
 Go to ACL.gov
 Older Americans Month 2016 Badges
 Badges
The following types of badges celebrating Older Americans Month are available: Leaderboard, Showcase (two designs) and Small Showcase. All are in JPEG format.
Leaderboard, 728x90pxOlder Americans Month, Blaze a Trail: May 2016
Showcase A, 300x250pxOlder Americans Month, Blaze a Trail: May 2016
Showcase B, 300x250pxOlder Americans Month, Blaze a Trail: May 2016
Small Showcase, 175x125pxOlder Americans Month, Blaze a Trail: May 2016

                    *Last modified on 02/03/2019*
 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.

FacebookYouTubeTwitter x logo  XLinkedInShare on Other PlatformsSite Support
  

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

        
      Disability Assistance and Information Line
                      Eldercare Locator
                      ElderJustice.acl.gov
                      LongTermCare.gov
                      OlderIndians.govRelated 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
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 148.400 What does this subpart do? ( a ) This subpart prescribes requirements under 33 U.S.C. 1504(b) for the activities that are involved in site evaluation and pre-construction testing at potential locations for deepwater ports and that may: ( 1 ) Adversely affect the environment;
( 2 ) Interfere with authorized uses of the Outer Continental Shelf; or
( 3 ) Pose a threat to human health and welfare.
( b ) For the purpose of this subpart, “site evaluation and pre-construction testing” means studies performed at potential deepwater port locations, including: ( 1 ) Preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of a site;
( 2 ) Detailed studies of the topographic and geologic structure of the ocean bottom to determine its ability to support offshore structures and other equipment; and
( 3 ) Studies done for the preparation of the environmental analysis required under § 148.105 of this part.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39177, July 1, 2013]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

71 

KA 11-00857 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBBIE L. ALLEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (MARK C. DAVISON OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G.

Reed, A.J.), rendered April 5, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed. 

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal sale

of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39

[1]), and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a separate judgment

convicting him, also upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the

second degree (§ 215.56). We note at the outset that defendant raises

no challenge to the judgment in appeal No. 1, and we therefore dismiss

the appeal from that judgment (see CPL 470.60 [1]; People v Allen, 93

AD3d 1340, 1340-1341, lv denied 19 NY3d 956). With respect to appeal

No. 2, defendant challenges only the sentence, but concedes that he

has been resentenced upon the judgment in that appeal. Consequently,

inasmuch as “the initial sentence has been super[s]eded[,] any issue

with respect to sentencing on th[at] appeal is now moot” (People v

Gannon, 2 AD3d 1214, 1214; see People v Haywood, 203 AD2d 966, 966, lv

denied 83 NY2d 967). 

Entered: February 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# AGENCY:

 Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

 Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

 In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-463, The Federal Advisory Committee Act, this announces the forthcoming AFEB meeting. This Board will meet from 0730-1600 on Monday, February 28, and 0730-1300 on Tuesday, February 29, 2000. The purpose of the meeting is to address pending and new Board issues, provide briefings for Board members on topics related to ongoing and new Board issues, conduct subcommittee meetings, and conduct an executive working session. The meeting location will be at fort Sam Houston, Texas.

This meeting will be open to the public but limited by space accommodations. Any interested person may attend, appear before or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 COL Benedict Diniega, AFEB Executive Secretary, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, Skyline Six, 5109 Leesburg Pike, Room 682, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3258, (703) 681-8012/4.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

None.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-1374 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Fort Berthold Federal Implementation Plan

AQIA Calories per Second Calculations with Data from Synthetic Minor Permit Applications

July 2012

Company / 

Operator

Heater-Treater Gas - utility 

flare (btu/scf)

Tank Gas - enclosed 

combustor (btu/scf)

calories 

per btu

HeaterTreater gas 

Mean 

(scf/day) 

Tank Gas 

Mean 

(scf/day)

seconds 

per day

T

u

Enerplus 1,473.0 1,418.0 252.2 189,880.0 20,444.0 86,400.0 

XTO 1,401.0 2,000.0 252.2 189,880.0 20,444.0 86,400.0 

WPX 1,606.0 2,402.0 252.2 189,880.0 20,444.0 86,400.0 

EOG 1,444.0 2,352.0 252.2 189,880.0 20,444.0 86,400.0 

Marathon 1,612.0 2,231.0 252.2 189,880.0 20,444.0 86,400.0 

Petrohunt 1,085.0 2,045.0 252.2 189,880.0 20,444.0 86,400.0 

Mean Value 1,436.8 2,074.7 252.2 189,880.0 20,444.0 86,400.0 

Cal / second = (btu/scf) * (cal / btu) * (scf / day) / (86400 sec / day)Btu / scf values gathered from one application for 6 operatorsFlare Gas Volumes Mean taken from AQIA spreadsheet analysis of 64 operator syn minor applications
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 568 

Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National 

Governors Association. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2008 

Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BAYH, Mr. 

BOND, Mr. GREGG, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of 

the National Governors Association. 

Whereas, in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt invited the 

Nation’s Governors to the White House to discuss conserving America’s natural resources; 

Whereas the Governors decided to form an association 

through which they could continue to come together on 

a bipartisan basis to discuss mutual concerns and share 

State practices; 

Whereas, 100 years later, the National Governors Association 

serves as the collective voice of the 55 Governors of 

States, commonwealths, and territories; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 568 ATS 

Whereas, for the past century, Governors have utilized the organization to explore issues, develop solutions, and build 

consensus on diverse national policies; 

Whereas the National Governors Association has played a key 

role in shaping public policy and addressing America’s 

most pressing challenges; and 

Whereas the National Governors Association is celebrating 

100 years of gubernatorial leadership—honoring the 

past, celebrating the present, and embracing the future: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the leadership of the Nation’s 

3 Governors and honors their contributions to Amer4 ican politics and society; and 

5 (2) commemorates the 100th anniversary of the 

6 founding of the National Governors Association. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.187 Petaluma River. ( a ) The draw of the SMART Blackpoint railroad bridge, mile 0.8 at Blackpoint, shall be maintained in the fully open position, except for the crossing of trains or for maintenance. When the draw is closed and visibility from the drawtender's station is less than one mile up or down the channel, the drawtender shall sound two long blasts every minute. When the draw is reopened, the drawtender shall sound three short blasts.
( b ) The draw of the SMART Haystack Landing railroad bridge, mile 12.4 at Petaluma, shall open on signal from 3 a.m. to 11 p.m. if at least 30 minutes notice is given to the drawtender. At all other times, the draw shall be maintained in the fully open position, except for the crossing of trains or for maintenance. When the draw is closed and visibility from the drawtender's station is less than one mile up or down the channel, the drawtender shall sound two long blasts every minute. When the draw is reopened, the drawtender shall sound three short blasts.
( c ) The draw of the Petaluma highway bridge at “D” Street, mile 13.7, at Petaluma, shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given for openings from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and if at least 24 hours notice is given for openings from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.
[USCG-2018-0091, 84 FR 56701, Oct. 23, 2019]
§ 779.386 Restaurants may qualify as exempt 13(a)(2) establishments. ( a ) A restaurant may qualify as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2) of the Act. However, the establishment must meet all of the requirements of section 13(a)(2) (see § 779.337). It should be noted that a separate exemption from the overtime pay provisions of the Act only is provided in section 13(b)(18) for certain food service employees employed by establishments other than restaurants if the establishment meets the definition of a retail or service establishment as defined in the last sentence of section 13(a)(2). Privately owned and operated restaurants conducted as separate and independent business establishments in industrial plants, office buildings, government installations, hospitals, or colleges, such as were involved in *McComb* v. *Factory Stores,* 81 F. Supp. 403 (N.D. Ohio) continue to be exempt under section 13(a)(2) where the tests of the exemption are met (S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 28; H. Rept. 75, 87th Cong., first session, p. 10). However, they would not be met if the food service is carried on as an activity of the larger, nonretail establishment in which the facility is located and there is no independent, separate and distinct place of business offering the restaurant service to individual customers from the general public, who purchase the meals selected by them directly from the establishment which serves them. An establishment serving meals to individuals, pursuant to a contract with an organization or person paying for such meals because the latter has assumed a contractual obligation to furnish them to the individuals concerned, is selling to such organization or firm, and the sales are for resale within the meaning of section 13(a)(2). See also § 779.387.
#### Roseboro *v.*The State.

Argued January 21,

Decided March 1, 1907.

Atkinson, J.

1. A charge that “The defendant makes his statement and tells you that he shot this man to save his own life. The circumstances under which he shot- — -surrounding him at the time he shot — you must gather from all the facts and circumstances, gather from the witnesses and his statement. The law puts upon him the duty, where he admits the killing, of satisfying the jury that he was justified under some rule of law, unless the evidence in the ease against him shows justification or mitigation,” is not erroneous; nor is it error to fail to charge in connection therewith, upon written request, the reasons stated in the first headnote. of *Mann*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*760, as to the applicability to the facts of a given ease of a charge similar to that given.

2. The court, in the general instructions, sufficiently charged the law of circumstantial evidence, applicable to the facts in the case, and it was not erroneous to refuse to charge a cumulative written request on the subject.

3. A bare fear that the life of the accused, or his limb, or person, was in-danger at the time he took the life of the deceased will not justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were such as would excite the fears of a reasonable man. It is therefore proper to decline a request to charge, “if the deceased felt at the time, or had reason to feel from the circumstances, that it was necessary to shoot to save his own life, limb, or person, then he was justifiable.”'

4. Where the defendant introduced no evidence, and in his statement attempted to justify the homicide, on the ground that the killing of the deceased was necessary to save his own life, a charge that “if the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable man, and if the accused acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge, or if there be a reasonable doubt about it, — a reasonable doubt about whether he shot to save his own life,- — -he would be justified,” stated the law appropriate to the defense set up, and was, therefore, not erroneous.

5. The verdict is supported by the evidence; and the foregoing deals with . all the assignments of error argued in the brief by counsel for the plaintiff in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*

*827Indictment lor murder. Before Judge Seabrook. Miller superior court'. December 15, 1906.

*William I. Geer,*by *Z. H. Harrison,*for plaintiff in error.

*John 0. Hart, attorney-general,*and *J. A. Laing, solicitor-general,*by *B. B. Arnold,*contra.
#### § 4206.3 Credit against liability for a subsequent withdrawal.

Whenever an employer that was assessed withdrawal liability for a partial withdrawal from a plan partially or completely withdraws from that plan in a subsequent plan year, it shall receive a credit against the new withdrawal liability in an amount greater than or equal to zero, determined in accordance with this part. If the credit determined under §§ 4206.4 through 4206.9 is less than zero, the amount of the credit shall equal zero.
1

Filed 11/26/13 P. v. BearquiverCA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SONNY JAMES BEARQUIVER,

Defendant and Appellant. C073750

(Super. Ct. No. CRF120306)

Appointed counsel for defendant Sonny James Bearquiver has asked this court to

review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal.

( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) We find no errors and shall affirm the

judgment.2 BACKGROUND

On December 2 5 , 201 1 , defendant Sonny James Bearquiver threatened his

girlfriend with death when she told him t o move out of her home. She feared that he

woul d harm her. In 1989 , defendant was convicted of robbery.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to criminal threats (Pen. Code,

§ 422 , count 2 ) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, § § 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12) in

exchange for a stipulat ed sentence of four years in state prison and the dismissal of the

rem aining counts and allegations. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,

§ 1237.5).

DISCUSSION

Couns el filed an opening brief that s ets forth the facts of the case and requests this

court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.

( Wende , supra, 25 Cal. 3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a

supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30

days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

We note an error in preparation of the abstract of judgment. The abstract

erroneously reflects that defendant committed count 2 in 2012. Defendant committed his

offense in December 2011. We will direct the trial court to correct the abstract

accordingly.

Having undertaken an examinatio n of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected3

abstract of judgment and forward a certified cop y to the Department of C orrections and

Rehabilitation.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

HOCH , J.
Submitted on appellant’s motion for reconsideration filed November 12,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (116 Or App 393, 842 P2d 419) modified and adhered to as modified December 9, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DAVID ANDREW JONES, *Appellant.*

(90C-20365; CA A68211)

842 P2d 466

Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, for motion.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*175PER CURIAM

We allow defendant’s motion for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15(6). In our original decision, *State v. Jones,*113 Or App 228, 832 P2d 459 (1992), we remanded for resentencing on two grounds: that the court had erred in imposing sentence under ORS 137.635 on the basis of *State v. Haydon,*113 Or App 205, 832 P2d 457 (1992), and that the court had erred in denying defendant credit for time served. On reconsideration, we withdrew our original opinion and remanded for resentencing on the basis of our decision on reconsideration in *State v. Haydon,*116 Or App 347, 842 P2d 410 (1992). Accordingly, on further reconsideration, we modify our opinion on reconsideration and adopt the reasoning and conclusion from our original opinion that the sentencing court erred also in denying defendant credit for time served. *State v. Jones, supra,*113 Or App at 229.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

        I, Ilene Kaminsky, certify that:

        1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Epixtar
Corp..;

        2.      Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

        3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

        4.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                a)      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

                b)      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                c)      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

        5.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

                a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

                b)      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 15,2005

/s/ Ilene Kaminsky, Chief Executive Officer