alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52368-52369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21463]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on August 24, 2011 at 
10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002, to hear oral argument in an 
appeal by Eric J. Brown, Matthew J. Collins, Kevin J. Walsh, and Mark 
W. Wells (collectively, ``Respondents'') and a cross-appeal by the 
Division of Enforcement from an initial decision of an administrative 
law judge.
    Brown and Walsh were formerly associated with registered broker-
dealer Prime Capital Services, Inc. (``Prime Capital''), and Collins 
and Wells are currently associated with Prime Capital.

[[Page 52369]]

    The law judge found that, in sales of variable annuities to elderly 
customers, Respondents violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 
1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 
Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Exchange 
Act Rule 17a-3. The law judge also found that Collins failed to 
reasonably supervise Brown within the meaning of Exchange Act Sections 
15(b)(4)(E) and 15(b)(6). For these violations, the law judge issued 
cease-and-desist orders against Respondents, ordered Respondents to 
disgorge commissions earned from selling certain variable annuities, 
barred Respondents from associating with a broker, dealer, or 
investment adviser, and imposed a third-tier civil monetary penalty of 
$130,000 against each Respondent.
    Issues likely to be considered at oral argument include whether 
Respondents violated the above provisions and, if so, the extent to 
which, under the circumstances, sanctions are warranted.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

     Dated: August 17, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21463 Filed 8-18-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
#### § 158.300 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to supply the criteria needed for ports and terminals under § 158.110 used by oceangoing ships carrying NLS cargo or NLS residue to meet Regulation 7 of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78.
§ 110.150 Block Island Sound, N.Y. ( a ) *The anchorage ground.* A 3 ⁄ 4- by 2-mile rectangular area approximately 3 miles east-northeast of Gardiners Island with the following coordinates: latitude 41°06′12′′ N., longitude 72°00′05′′ W., latitude 41°07′40′′ N., longitude 72°01′54′′ W.; latitude 41°08′12′′ N., longitude 72°01′10′′ W.; latitude 41°06′46′′ N., longitude 71°59′18′′ W.
( b ) *The regulations.* This anchorage ground is for use of U.S. Navy submarines. No vessel or person may approach or remain within 500 yards of a U.S. Navy submarine anchored in this anchorage ground.
[CGFR 70-114A, 36 FR 5604, Mar. 25, 1971]
Hillsborough

No. 7169

#### Andrew J. Dow v. Benjamin Electric Company Benjamin Electric Supply Co. v. Andrew J. Dow

September 30, 1975

*539
      *George J. Basbanes,*by brief and orally, for Andrew J. Dow.

*Paul A. Rinden*and *Jay M. Niederman (Mr. Niederman*orally) for Benjamin Electric Supply Co.

Grimes, J.

The issue in this case is whether the evidence compelled a verdict in favor of Andrew J. Dow in his cross action against Benjamin Electric Company. We hold that it did not.

In December 1966, Benjamin Electric Supply Co., named as Benjamin Electric Company in Dow’s writ and hereinafter referred to as Benjamin, entered into a written contract to install insulation in a house being built by Dow who acted as general contractor. Benjamin also agreed to supply other items. The contract specified that the insulation in the sidewalls would be covered with polyethylene, a vapor barrier. No such specification was included for other areas. It was specified that the work was to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices.

After completion of the house in March 1969, and the refusal of Dow to pay a $561.61 balance, Benjamin brought suit. Dow brought a countersuit against Benjamin claiming damages for negligent failure of Benjamin to perform in a workmanlike manner. This was based on a failure to install a vapor barrier in the ceiling of the basement. Only the case *of Dow v. Benjamin*was tried, it being agreed that there was a balance of $561.51 due on the contract if it was not eliminated by a verdict in the cross action.

The trial court found for Benjamin and returned verdicts accordingly. Dow’s exceptions were transferred by *Flynn,*J.

The sole question is whether the evidence compelled a finding in Dow’s favor. He had the burden of proof on his claim, “and we must view the evidence most favorably to the defendant....” *Sindorf v. Dow,*112 N.H. 114, 116, 289 A.2d 394, 395 (1972); *Bothwick v. LaBelle,*115 N.H. 279, 339 A.2d 29 (1975). No vapor barrier for the ceiling of the cellar was specified in the contract, but it is argued that standard practice would require one. The evidence did not compel such a conclusion. There was evidence to the contrary where as here the basement was not to be lived in. Nor does the evidence compel a *540finding that the damage claimed (rusting of tools, mildew on clothes, buckling of floors, etc.) was caused by the absence of such a barrier.

*Judgment on the verdicts.*

All concurred.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-3986

 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM057AD

84-32-112, RB --- 9/12/2014 and (Goodrich) 46400-32-102, R1 --- 6/24/2013

84-32-112, RA --- 4/16/2014

84-32-112 --- 12/20/2012

84-32-114, RA --- 9/18/2013

84-32-114 --- 6/06/2013

84-54-20, RB --- 10/02/2014

84-54-20, RA --- 4/09/2014

84-54-20 --- 4/25/2013

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Plant Sciences 
-  Crop Systems & Global Change 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">	You are here: 						Research / 								**Research Project:**Soil Carbon in Urban Environments
**Location: Crop Systems & Global Change**
**2006 Annual Report**
**4d.Progress report.**													This report serves to document research progress under a Specific Cooperative agreement between ARS and the University of Maryland, College Park.  Additional details of research can be found in the report for the parent project, 1275-11210-001-00D, Crop and Weed Responses to Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.  Beginning in March of 2006, we initiated a new set of experiments to determine the onset and development rate of microrhizal populations along an urban-rural transect.  Previous work has shown that urbanization effects, particularly increases in air and soil temperature, as well as changes in growing season length and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, may serve as an approximate surrogate for short-term climatic change on a global level.  In addition to quantifying microrhizal populations along this transect, we have also begun work to examine the role microrhizae may play in enhancing the establishment and persistence of common agricultural weeds such as lambsquarters.  Understanding these links, particularly in relation to climatic change, will be essential in predicting which weed species may proliferate, a key component in determining potential changes in weed management strategies for the future.						
    Project TeamZiska, Lewis Bunce, James Sicher, Richard  Brian Needelman - Assistant Professor  
Project Annual Reports FY 2008 FY 2007 FY 2006 
Related National Programs Global Change(204) Plant Biological and Molecular Processes(302)  							Last Modified: 05/08/2009 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
```

[106th Congress Public Law 496]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ496.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 2218]]

Public Law 106-496
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, 
   design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, 
  Oregon, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Nov. 9, 2000 -  [S. 2425]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Bend Feed Canal Pipeline 
Project Act of 2000.>>  assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project Act 
of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

    (a) The Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Tumalo 
Irrigation District (referred to in this section as the ``District''), 
is authorized to participate in the planning, design, and construction 
of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon.
    (b) The Federal share of the costs of the project shall not exceed 
50 percent of the total, and shall be nonreimbursable. The District 
shall receive credit from the Secretary toward the District's share of 
the project for any funds the District has provided toward the design, 
planning or construction prior to the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Funds received under this Act shall not be considered a 
supplemental or additional benefit under the Act of June 17, 1902 (82 
Stat. 388) and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.
    (d) Title to facilities constructed under this Act will be held by 
the District.
    (e) Operations and maintenance of the facilities will be the 
responsibility of the District.
    (f) There are authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the 
Federal share of the activities authorized under this Act.

    Approved November 9, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2425:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-359 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 13, considered and passed Senate.
            Oct. 23, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35058-35059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP97-369-015 and RP98-54-031]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Refund Report

May 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG) tendered for filing its third annual refund report in Docket Nos. 
RP97-369 and RP98-54.
    CIG states that this filing and refunds were made to comply with 
the Commission's order of September 10, 1997. CIG states that refunds 
were paid by CIG on May 1, 1998 and June 10, 1998.
    CIG states that the May 18, 2000, refund report summarizes the 
refunds made as of that date by CIG for Kansas ad valorem tax 
overpayments, pursuant to the Commission's September 10, 1997, Order. 
CIG asserts that no lump sum cash refunds were made by CIG to its 
former jurisdictional sales customers since its second annual refund 
report filed in 1999. Instances where payment has not been made within 
thirty days of receipt from the producers, appropriate interest will be 
computed as provided for in the order.
    CIG states that copies of the filing have been served on CIG's 
former jurisdictional sales customers, interested states' commissions 
and all parties to the proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 1, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc. fed.us/online/

[[Page 35059]]

rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13624 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 149

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 149.310 What are the muster and embarkation requirements for survival craft?

Muster and embarkation arrangements for survival craft must comply with 46 CFR 108.540.
Eating your fruits and vegetables is a lot easier than you might think. One cup-equivalent of most fruits and

vegetables is the amount that would fit in a measuring cup if chopped, or about 2 handfuls. The exceptions

are raw leafy greens (2 cups count as 1 cup) or dried fruit (1

⁄2 cup counts as 1 cup).

Easy ways to eat more

fruits and vegetables. 

For example, a 35 year-old fairly active woman would need 41⁄2 cups per day. 

The chart below shows what 41

⁄2 cups might look like.

Fruits and vegetables are only one

component of a healthy diet. In 

addition to fruits and vegetables,

a healthy diet also includes whole

grains, fat-free or low-fat milk 

products, lean meats, fish, beans,

eggs, and nuts. It is also low in 

saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol,

salt, and added sugars.

The following examples count as 1 cup:

1 small apple

1 large banana

2 medium cantaloupe wedges

1 medium grapefruit 

1 large orange

1 large peach

1 medium pear

2 large or 3 small plums

8 large strawberries

1 small watermelon wedge 

2 small boxes of raisins or other dried fruit

3 spears of broccoli 

1 cup of cooked greens or 2 cups raw 

(spinach, collards, mustard greens, turnip greens)

2 medium carrots or 12 baby carrots

1 large sweet potato

1 large ear of corn 

1 medium potato

2 large stalks of celery

1 large bell pepper

1 large tomato

1

⁄2 can of beans

MID-DAY EVENING MORNING

1 large banana

1cup

1cup

1cup

1 cup sweet potato

1 small apple 2 cups of lettuce count as 

1 cup of vegetables

1

⁄2 cup broccoli

11⁄2 cups

THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT FRUITS & VEGETABLES
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.337 Trout River. The draw of the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Trout River, mile 0.9 at Jacksonville, operates as follows: ( a ) The bridge is not tended.
( b ) The draw is normally in the fully open position, displaying green lights to indicate that vessels may pass.
( c ) As a train approaches, provided the scanners do not detect a vessel under the draw, the lights change to flashing red and a horn continuously sounds while the draw closes. The draw remains closed until the train passes.
( d ) After the train clears the bridge, the lights continue to flash red and the horn again continuously sounds while the draw opens, until the draw is fully open and the lights return to green.
[USCG-2009-0249, 75 FR 24402, May 5, 2010]
#### ELIAS KAHN, Appellant, *v.*ADAM NORRIE, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.

*Disbursements*— *Stenographer/''s minutes.*

Appeal from an order made at Special Term, directing the clerk to tax the fees of the stenographer for a copy of his minutes, as a necessary disbursement in favor of respondent.

The court, after an examination of the affidavits, concluded that the respondent, not having ordered the minutes from day to day, and not having appealed,, and there not appearing in the facts *73anything making the copy of the minutes necessary in his proceedings in the action, reversed the order, with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements, and directed that the motion below be denied, with ten dollars costs, such disbursements to be adjusted by the clerk, and, with the costs allowed, to be set off against those of defendant, Nome, already adjusted. The court did not consider the question whether, in any event, it would be a proper disbursement, under section 256 of the Code.

*Elias J.*Beach, for the appellant.

*Knox &*Mason, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Daniels, J., concurred.

Brady, J.,

concurred, “ inasmuch as the minutes do not appear to have been ordered from day to day during the trial, and because the defendant, Norrie, having succeeded, the notes were not then necessary, the plaintiff not having appealed.”
Public Utilities Commission

No. 7298

#### Donald LaCroix d.b.a. Rochester Central and Red Line Taxi *& a.*v. Omer P. Mountain d.b.a. Rochester Dial-A-Ride

September 30, 1976

*546*Bums, Bryant, Hinchey, Cox & Shea (Mr. Donald R. Bryant*orally) for the plaintiffs LaCroix and city of Rochester.

*Cooper, Hall & Walker*and *Donald F. Whittum (Mr. Whittum*orally) for the defendant Mountain.

Memorandum Opinion

This is an appeal from the denial of the plaintiffs’ petition to revoke a certificate issued by the public utilities commission to the defendant to engage in the common carriage of passengers by irregular route, and from the denial of their subsequent motion for rehearing. RSA 541:6. The defendant moved in this court to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the appeal “[w]ithin thirty days after the application for a rehearing [was] denied ....” RSA 541:6.

The plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied by the commission under date of July 24, 1975, and notice of the denial was received by their counsel on July 28, 1975. Their appeal, executed under date of August 25, 1975, was filed with this court on August 27, 1975.

Since the appeal was not filed within the time limited by the statute, the motion to dismiss is granted. *Nashua v. Public Utilities Commission,*101 N.H. 503, 148 A.2d 277 (1959). *See also Hunter v. State,*107 N.H. 365, 222 A.2d 214 (1966); *Ayotte v. Department of Employ. Security,*114 N.H. 147, 317 A.2d 16 (1974); *Gallo v. Century Broadcasting,*114 N.H. 810, 812, 330 A.2d 780, 781-82 (1974).

*Appeal dismissed.*

Grimes, J., did not sit.
(LOGO) KPMG


355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
Downey Financial Corp.:

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  Downey  Financial  Corp.  and
subsidiaries' (Downey) compliance with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation
Program for Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31,
1999  included  in  the  accompanying   management   assertion.   Management  is
responsible for Downey's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about Downey's
compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis, evidence about Downey's compliance with the minimum
servicing  standards  and  performing  such other  procedures  as we  considered
necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination  provides a
reasonable  basis for our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not  provide a legal
determination on Downey's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In  our  opinion,   management's  assertion  that  Downey  Financial  Corp.  and
subsidiaries  has  complied in all  material  respects  with the  aforementioned
minimum  servicing  standards as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1999 is
fairly stated, in all material respects.

KPMG LLP

January 21, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended September 30, 1995 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                      11,604,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,431,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   473,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,471,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,363,000
<PP&E>                                      38,164,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,662,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,626,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,577,000
<BONDS>                                     10,000,000
<COMMON>                                     1,196,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,090,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,626,000
<SALES>                                     13,149,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,149,000
<CGS>                                        9,080,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,258,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             303,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                758,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   151,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            607,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   607,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 116
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 116 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35012, June 19, 2008 and USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 49410, Aug. 13, 2010.

§ 116.25 Public meetings. ( a ) Any time the Chief, Office of Bridge Programs determines that a Detailed Investigation is warranted, or when Congress declares a bridge unreasonably obstructive, the District Commander will hold a public meeting near the location of the bridge to provide the bridge owner, waterway users, and other interested parties the opportunity to offer evidence and be heard, orally or in writing, as to whether any alterations are necessary to provide reasonably free, safe, and unobstructed passage for waterborne traffic. The District Commander will issue a public notice announcing the public meeting stating the time, date, and place of the meeting.
( b ) When a bridge is statutorily determined to be an unreasonable obstruction, the scope of the meeting will be to determine what navigation clearances are needed.
( c ) In all other cases, the scope of the meeting will be to address issues bearing on the question of whether the bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and, if so, what alterations are needed.
( d ) The meeting will be recorded. Copies of the public meeting transcript will be available for purchase from the recording service.
[CGD 91-063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, as amended by CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33664, June 28, 1996; USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39174, July 1, 2013]