alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

89–011 2001

107th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 107–47

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

WITH RESPECT TO CUBA

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE EMERGENCY DECLARED WITH RESPECT

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA’S DESTRUCTION OF TWO UNARMED U.S.-REGISTERED CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT IN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE NORTH OF CUBA ON FEBRUARY 24, 1996,

IS TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND MARCH 1, 2001, PURSUANT

TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d)

FEBRUARY 27, 2001.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the

Committee on International Relations and ordered to be printed


E:\Seals\Congress.#13

E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1)

To the Congress of the United States:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.

1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the

President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the

Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision,

I have sent the enclosed notice to the Federal Register for publication, which states that the emergency declared with respect to the

Government of Cuba’s destruction of two unarmed U.S.-registered

civilian aircraft in international airspace north of Cuba on February 24, 1996, is to continue in effect beyond March 1, 2001.

GEORGE W. BUSH.

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 27, 2001.

(3)

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY RELATING TO CUBA

AND OF THE EMERGENCY AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF THE ANCHORAGE AND MOVEMENT OF VESSELS

On March 1, 1996, by Proclamation 6867, President Clinton declared a national emergency to address the disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations caused by the February

24, 1996, destruction by the Government of Cuba of two unarmed

U.S.-registered civilian aircraft in international airspace north of

Cuba. In July 1996 and on subsequent occasions, the Government

of Cuba stated its intent to forcefully defend its sovereignty against

any U.S.-registered vessels or aircraft that might enter Cuban territorial waters or airspace while involved in a memorial flotilla and

peaceful protest. Since these events, the Government of Cuba has

not demonstrated that it will refrain from the future use of reckless

and excessive force against U.S. vessels or aircraft that may engage

in memorial activities or peaceful protest north of Cuba. Therefore,

in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act

(50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with

respect to Cuba and the emergency authority relating to the regulation of the anchorage and movement of vessels set out in Proclamation 6867.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH.

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 27, 2001.

Æ
§ 801.59 Service and computation of time. ( a ) Service of documents under this subpart shall be made by personal service to the individual, officer of a corporation, or attorney of record or by mailing the determination to the last known address of the individual, officer, or attorney. If done by certified mail, service is complete upon mailing. If done by regular mail, service is complete upon receipt by addressee.
( b ) Two (2) copies of all pleadings and other documents required for any administrative proceeding provided by this part shall be served on the attorneys for the Department of Labor. One copy shall be served on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, and one copy on the Attorney representing the Department in the proceeding.
( c ) Time will be computed beginning with the day following the action and includes the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or federally-observed holiday, in which case the time period includes the next business day.
( d ) When a request for hearing is served by mail, five (5) days shall be added to the prescribed period during which the party has the right to request a hearing on the determination.
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 150.506 When must the operator service inflatable lifesaving appliances and marine evacuation systems? ( a ) The operator must service each inflatable lifejacket, hybrid inflatable lifejacket, and marine evacuation system at 1-year intervals after its initial packing. The operator may delay the servicing for up to 5 months to meet the next scheduled inspection of the deepwater port.
( b ) The operator must service each inflatable liferaft no later than the month and year on its servicing sticker under 46 CFR 160.151-57(m)(3)(ii), except that the operator may delay servicing by up to 5 months to meet the next scheduled inspection of the deepwater port. The operator must also service each inflatable liferaft: ( 1 ) Whenever the container of the raft is damaged; or
( 2 ) Whenever the container straps or seals are broken.
§ 158.140 Applying for a Certificate of Adequacy. ( a ) To continue to receive ships at a port or terminal required by § 158.135 to have a Certificate of Adequacy for its reception facilities, the person in charge must apply to the Coast Guard for a certificate as follows: ( 1 ) Applicants for a Certificate of Adequacy required by § 158.135(a) or (b) must apply to the COTP of the Zone in which the port or terminal is located using Form A or Form B, respectively.
( 2 ) An applicant for a Certificate of Adequacy required by section 158.135(c) must apply on Form C to the COTP of the Zone in which the port or terminal is located.
( b ) Applications for Certificates of Adequacy, Forms A, B, or C, may be obtained from the local Coast Guard COTP.
[CGD 88-002, 54 FR 18408, Apr. 28, 1989, as amended by CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33668, June 28, 1996; 61 FR 36629, July 12, 1996]
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.85 Sewage removal.

The device must be designed for efficient removal of nearly all of the liquid and solids in the sewage retention tank.
#### § 155.1115 Definitions.

Except as provided in this section, the definitions in § 155.1020 apply to this subpart.

*Prince William Sound* means all State and Federal waters within Prince William Sound, Alaska, including the approach to Hinchinbrook Entrance out to and encompassing Seal Rock.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-40278 Conference Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus ELIAS RIVERA-ALVAREZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(05-CR-459)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant, Elias Rivera-Alvarez (“Rivera”). United States v. Rivera-Alvarez, 202 Fed.Appx. 830 (5th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S.Ct. 625 (2006). Ochoa-Perez v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 1263 (2007). Following the Supreme2

Court’s remand, we requested and received supplemental letter briefs from both parties with respect to the impact of Lopez . In the light of Lopez, the district court erred by enhancing Rivera’s sentence based on his Texas conviction for possession of cocaine. Because Rivera has completed service of his term of imprisonment and was released by the Bureau of Prisons on August 31, 2006, any argument that the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced is moot and the only portion of the sentence remaining for consideration is Rivera’s term of supervised release. However, as both parties noted in their supplemental letter briefs, Rivera presumably has been deported. In order to resentence him and reduce his term of supervised release, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires the defendant to be present and have the opportunity to allocute. Because Rivera has been deported and is legally unable, without permission of the Attorney General, to reenter the United States to be present for a resentencing proceeding, there is no relief we are able to grant Rivera and his appeal is moot. See United States v. RosenbaumAlanis, No. 05-41400, 2007 WL 926832 (5th Cir. March 29, 2007). Rivera asserts that Rosenbaum-Alanis was wrongly decided, and wishes to preserve the issue for further review. Nevertheless, for purposes of this appeal, it remains binding precedent. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Original

No. 7222

#### Roy K. Patten v. State of New Hampshire

June 8, 1976

Roy K. Patten, by brief, pro se.

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *James L. Kruse,*attorney, by brief, for the State.

Memorandum Opinion

The plaintiff was convicted of aggravated assault and, in November 1969, was sentenced to the State prison for a term of not more than ten years or less than three years. He was paroled three times, and each time he was returned to the prison for violation of his parole conditions. About one-half year after his last imprisonment for violation of parole, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for bail in the superior court. Following the superior court’s denial of the motion for bail, the plaintiff filed a motion for bail in the supreme court. Soon after that filing, the superior court denied the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The grant or refusal of bail is discretionary with the trial court *(State v. Booton,*114 N.H. 152, 317 A.2d 18 (1974); *State v. Hutton,*
      *344107 N.H. 426, 428, 223 A.2d 416, 417 (1966). *See also Moses v. Helgemoe,*115 N.H. 672, 348 A.2d 354 (1975)), and the trial court’s exercise of discretion will be overturned by this court only on evidence of a compelling nature. *State v. Booton supra.*The record in this court discloses no evidence compelling a finding of abuse of discretion.

The order is

*Plaintiff’s motion denied.*
§ 151.1015 Issuing or denying the issuance of a conditional permit. ( a ) After reviewing the application made under § 151.1012, the Coast Guard either— ( 1 ) Issues the conditional permit for a vessel under this section; or ( 2 ) Denies the issuance of the conditional permit to the vessel in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. On denying the issuance of the permit, the Coast Guard notifies the applicant of the— ( i ) Denial and the reason for the denial; and ( ii ) Procedures under § 151.1021 for appealing the denial. ( b ) Each conditional permit issued under this section is effective— ( 1 ) On the date it is issued; and ( 2 ) Until the expiration date stated on the conditional permit unless it is— ( i ) Withdrawn under § 151.1018; ( ii ) Terminated because— ( A ) The vessel is sold; or ( B ) This subpart no longer applies to the vessel. (c) The Coast Guard may deny the issuance of a conditional permit if— ( i ) The application does not contain the information required under § 151.1012; or ( ii ) There is reason to believe that the information contained on the application is not true and correct.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0304

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM EDDIE MOODY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 14, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

James Jeremiah Shea

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 7 2021

05/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0304
# TECHNICAL DATA S H EET 

# Potassium Acetate 50% KC 2 

# H 3 

# O 2 Typical Pro p erties Potassium Acetate, w g t % 50 (min) Iron 5 ppm ( m ax.) Arsenic 3 ppm ( m ax) Heavy Metals as Pb 10 ppm ( m ax) Molecula r Weight 98.14 Specific Gravity@ 20 o 

# C 1.27 (min) Pounds per Gallon @ 20 o 

# C 10.6 pH (neat) 9.6-10.2 Color Clear

THE INF O RMA T ION S E T FORT H ON THIS DA TA SHE ET IS B ELI EVED TO BE A CCURATEAS O FTH E PRE S EN T DATE

. SINC E T H E ACT UAL U S E BY OTH E RS IS BEYO ND OU R CONTROL , IT IS THE P U RCH ASER’S/U SER ’ S RESPONS IBI L IT Y TO D ETER MI NE TH E SU ITAB ILI T Y OF THE P R ODUCT F O R T H EIR O WN USEAND PURPO S E

. NACHURS A L P I NE SO LU TIO N S MAKE S NO REPRESE N TA TI ONS OR WAR R ANTI E S, EIT H ER EXPR ESSE D , IMP L IE D OR F I TNESS FOR A PARTICU L AR P U RPOSE

. NACH U RS ALP I NES O LUT I ON S NE I T HER A SSU ME S RESPONS IBI L IT Y REGARDI NG THE ACCURAC YOR SUITABI L ITY OF SUCH I N FORMA T I ON OR PRODUCT F O R APPLIC ATI ON T O PURCH ASER’ S IN TEN DED US E OR PURPOS E NOR FORTH E C ONSEQ UENC ES OF I T S U S E. N O SUGGE STI ONS FOR USE A R E INT E ND ED , AND NO TH I NG HER E IN S HALL B ECO NSTRU E D AS A RECOM M EN DA TION TO INFR IN GE AN Y E X IS TI NG PA TEN TS O RTO V I OL ATE ANY F E DER A L, STAT E OR LOC A L LA WS, R U LE S O RREGU LAT I ON S.

Rev 10/26/09
#### James B. Duke, respondent, v. Lillian N. Duke, appellant.

[Argued November 22d, 1906.

Decided November 26th, 1906.]

On appeal from an order of the chancellor, advised by AUee-Cliancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in *70 N. J. Eq.*(4 *Robb.) 135.*

*Mr. Ohauncey G.*Parker, for the appellant.

*Messrs. Linddbury, Depue ■&*Faulks, for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from in this case is affirmed, for the reasons ’ stated in the opinion filed in the court of chancery by AUceChancellor Pitney.

*For*affirmance—Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Garrison, Fort, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Bogert, AJre-DENBURGH, A^ROOM, GliEEN, GRAY, DlLL-14.

*For*reversal—None.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50057 Summary Calendar

ROBERT EARL O’DELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRUCE W. SCHWARTZER; KENNETH E. ARRINGTON; ROGER PRYOR, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-99-CV-321

-------------------- May 8, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Earl O’Dell, Texas prisoner # 504872, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. By moving for IFP status, O’Dell is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117No. 00-50057 -2- F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). O’Dell argues that he should be excused from the exhaustion requirement because he reasonably pursued all administrative remedies in good faith, but his “several attempts to file a grievance” were refused. He admits, however, that his Step 1 grievance was nevertheless heard. By filing his § 1983 complaint only 20 days after the incident and foregoing all of his administrative remedies, O’Dell deprived the prison authorities of an opportunity to redress the matter administratively. O’Dell has not shown that he is excused from the exhaustion requirement. O’Dell has therefore failed to show that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Wendell v. Asher , 162 F.3d 887, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. O’Dell’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). O’Dell is warned that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CA-650-1430-ET; CACA 42078] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy has submitted to the Bureau of Land Management a notice of intention to relinquish the withdrawn status of 42.3 acres of public land in San Bernardino County, California, that was withdrawn for military purposes by the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. 

# DATES:

Effective June 7, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Duane Marti, (CA-931.4), California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1834, Sacramento, California 95825-1886; 916-978-4675. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the Department of the Navy has submitted, to the Bureau of Land Management, a notice of intention to relinquish the withdrawn status of 42.3 acres of public land in San Bernardino County, California, that was withdrawn for military purposes by the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. The land is no longer needed for that purpose, but is needed by the Bureau of Land Management for the expansion of the Ridgecrest Regional Wild Horse and Burro corrals. 

Pursuant to section 808(b) of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, the Navy has stated that the land was not contaminated and that no decontamination measures were required. 

The Navy's notice will be processed in accordance with section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, section 808 of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, and the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2370. 

Dated: June 1, 2000.

David McIlnay,

Chief, Branch of Lands.

[FR Doc. 00-14269 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.18
 AGREEMENT OF BENEFITS COVERAGE
AGREED WITH OFFICERS OF GRUPO SANTANDER
   I.
 II.
 III.
 IV.
 Terms & Conditions
 FIRST:




---



##### 



minus
     SECOND:
 
 THIRD:
  A.
 (PF  PI)  PI
 2




---



##### 



PF = weighted average price of the first 15 sessions in each entitys principal
stock market for the year 2007.
 PI = weighted average price of the first 15 sessions in each entitys principal
stock market for the year 2005.
 NAR = 1 + D1 / P1 + D2 / P2 +
D3 / P3 +...............+ Dn / Pn
  1 st
 2 st
 n st
 1 1
 2 2
 n n
  B.
  3




---



##### 




  C
  CITIGROUP
    
     UBS BANK OF AMERICA
    
     CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON JP MORGAN CHASE
    
     BNP PARIBAS WELLS FARGO
    
     SOCIETE GENERALE WACHOVIA
    
     CREDIT AGRICOLE US BANCORP
    
     DEXIA FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
    
     BBVA HSBC
    
     DEUTSCHE BANK ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
    
     ABN AMRO BARCLAYS
    
     UNICREDITO HBOS
    
     BANCA INTESA LLOYDS TSB
    
     SANPAOLO IMI ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
    
     NORDEA BANK AB BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
 D
   4




---



##### 



E.
 F.
 G
 H
 a)
    
    By the entire exercise in the fixed period.b)
    
    Upon termination of the Exercise Period if the officers or his/her heirs have not exercised
the benefit.c)
    
    By express decision of the Corporate Committee of Assessment and Bonus of Grupo Santander
when:
 
    
    The individual assessment of the Officer, in two intermediate exercises for 2005 and
2006 in the course of the Plan, results in a Performance May Improve classification, or
when
    
    The Unit, Area or Country for which the Officer renders his or her services achieves,
in the exercises for 2005 and 2006, results lower than 80% of the budgeted results.
 d)
    
    By termination of the labor relation, except for certain assumptions excepted in the
Agreement to be executed between the Officer and the Affiliate.e)
    
    For the general causes of termination of obligations.
 FOURTH.GOVERNING LAW.
  5




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 BANCO SANTANDER
CENTRAL HISPANO, S.A.By:/s/ José R. González
Name:  José R. González
Title:  President
    
    By:/s/Manuel Arias de la Cruz
Name:  Manuel Arias de la Cruz
Title:By:/s/María Calero
Name:  María Calero
Title:  Executive Vice president
    
    By:/s/Juan Carlos Díez Zapatero
Name:  Juan Carlos Díez Zapatero
Title:
 6
§ 127.109 Lighting systems. ( a ) The marine transfer area for LNG must have a lighting system and separate emergency lighting.
( b ) All outdoor lighting must be located or shielded so that it is not confused with any aids to navigation and does not interfere with navigation on the adjacent waterways.
( c ) The lighting system must provide an average illumination on a horizontal plane one meter (3.3 feet) above the deck that is— ( 1 ) 54 lux (five foot-candles) at any loading flange; and
( 2 ) 11 lux (one foot-candle) at each work area.
( d ) The emergency lighting must provide lighting for the operation of the— ( 1 ) Emergency shutdown system;
( 2 ) Communications equipment; and
( 3 ) Firefighting equipment.
[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39795, Aug. 3, 1995]