alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T he Hon or abl e Dann y C. Re e ves , Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s tr i c tJ ud ge f orth e Ea s t e rn Di s tr i c tof

K e nt uc ky, * sittingby des ig nation. -1- NOT R ECO MMENDED F ORFUL L- TEXT P UB LI CA TI ON

Fil e Name: 06a0895n. 06 Fil ed: December14, 2006 No. 06-3019 UNIT ED STATES COU RT OF APP EALS F O R TH E S IXTH C IR C U IT UNI TED S TATES SEC UR I TI ES A ND EXC HANGE CO MMI SS I ON, Plai nti f f -Appell ee,

v. BR ADLEY T

. SMI TH, CONTINEN TAL MIDWEST FI NANC I AL, I NC

. , SC I OTO N A T IO N A L , IN C ., BA NC SHA REH OLDER S OF AM ERICA, INC. , a ndBANCSHARE IN V E S T O R S B R O K E R A G E , IN C ., D efendan ts-Ap pellants.

_________________________________ ON AP PEAL FR OM THE UN I TED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O RT HE S O U T H E RN DIS T RICT OF OH IO

Bef ore: DA UG HT RE Y and M CK E AG UE , Circ uitJ udges ; a nd RE E VE S, Dis tr ic t Judge. * PE R CU RIAM

. T he Unit ed Sta te s Securi ti es and Exchange Commis s ion ( “ SE C”) broughtthi s act ion a gai ns t the Def endant s -Appell ant s , Bradl ey T

. Smit h (“ Smit h”), Conti nent al M idwes t Fi nanci al , Inc. (“ Conti nent al ”), and Sci oto Nat iona l, Inc. (“ Sciot o”), and the re li ef-2-

Def endant s - Ap p e l l an t s , Ban c s hare holde rs of Am eri ca, Inc. , and Banc s hare Inves tor s Brokera ge, Inc. , f or all eged viol at ions of the Securi ti es Act of 1933 and the Secur it ie s E xchange Act of 1934 in c onnect ion with two pri vat e of f eri ngs of Conti nent al and Sci oto’ s common s toc k. T he di s tr ic t court g ra n ted the SE C’ s moti on f or s ummaryjudgme nt a gai ns t the Def endant s , f

indi ng tha t Smit h, Sciot o and C onti nent al act ed w ith the requi s it e s ci ent er i n maki ng mis repr es ent at ions of mat eri al f

act s in vi ola ti on of

Sect ion 17( a)( 1), (2), and (3) of the Securi ti es Act, Sect ion 10( b) of the Securi ti es E xchange Act, an d R u le 1 0b-5 there under. T he di s tr ic t c ourtal s o grant ed

s ummaryjudgme nt agai ns t Smith under S ect ion 20( a) of the Securi ti es E xchange Act, f indi ng tha t he was l iable as a control pers on f or Conti nent al and Sci oto’ s viol at ions of the Securi ti es E x ch an g e A ct. Af t e r a c a r e f

u l r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , t h e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s , c o u n s e l s ’ a r g u me n t s , a n d the appl ic abl e l aw, we conc lude tha t the dis tr ic t court corr ect ly det ermi ned tha t the SE C w as ent it le d to s ummaryjudgme nt on it s cl ai ms. Becaus e the dis tr ic t court ’ s opini on acc urat el y s et s out the la w governing thes e i s s ues and cl ear lys ta te s the rea s ons f or it s concl us ions , is s uance of a more le ngthyopini on in this ca se w o u ld not s erve a us ef ul pur pos e. Accordi ngly , f

or the re as ons stat ed in th e district court’s op inion , we A F F IR M the jud gm ent of the district court.
Strafford

No. 78-126

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Herbert Eldridge

September 27, 1978

*Thomas D. Rath,*attorney general *{Peter W. Heed,*assistant attorney general, orally), for the State.

*James Koromilas,*of Dover, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Memorandum

This is an appeal from a conviction of the defendant for robbery. Defendant seeks to have his conviction overturned on the twin grounds that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss at the close of the State’s case and in not setting aside the verdict of guilty as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The merits of the appeal rest wholly on an analysis of the facts. The established rule is that on review the evidence must be considered “in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.” *State v. Canney,*112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972); *accord, State v. Breest,*116 N.H. 734, 367 A.2d 1320 (1976). A review of the facts reveals that the victim testified that the defendant robbed him, that he had picked defendant’s picture out of ninety different mug shots, that when first contacted by the police he said he knew who had robbed him, that the robber’s first name was Herbert and that he formerly drove a cab. There was conflicting evidence, but the case became a classic credibility dispute between two witnesses, the victim and a passenger in the defendant’s car. The jury chose to believe the victim, and we find no error in its doing so.

*Exceptions overruled.*
#### § 3050.12 Obsolescence of special studies relied on to produce the Postal Service's annual periodic reports to the Commission.

The Postal Service shall provide a list of special studies whose results are used to produce the estimates in its annual periodic reports to the Commission. It shall indicate the date the study was completed and whether the study reflects current operating conditions and procedures. The Postal Service shall update the list annually.
1



# Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure

Date: A pril 13 , 2011

Time: 1:00

- 2:00 PM Eastern

Location: Phone

Organizer: Henry ML Wong

Purpose: Provide clarifications and feedback on Battery Charger test methodologies as applied

to upcoming US DOE rulings in this product category.



## Attendees

Name Affiliation

Henry ML Wong Intel Corporation

Victor Petrolati U.S. Department of Energy

Jim Kardach Intel Corporation

Matthew Nardotti Navigant Consulting

Ken Rider CA Energy Commi s sion



## Meeting Summary

 I ntel reviewed the documented feedback (attached) on the battery charger test methodology as described in the CA Energy Commission document, Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure Version 2.2, January 26, 2009

.

 Particular focus and concern was placed on evaluating energy efficiency of the battery charging system for products where battery charging was an embedded feature and not its primary function. Devices in this category include computer notebooks, netbooks, tablets and other mobile computing devices.

 Intel reviewed the complexity of separating the battery chargi ng from the primary functions of these mobile computers. Intel noted key considerations including:

o O verriding “smart” batteries to full y charge or discharge the unit may impact the safety or functionality of the product

o Battery removal on tablet and futu re mobile computing form factors may be impossible without destroying the product functionality

o If the DOE is considering yearly charger energy efficiency, the calculations should remove the energy related to operate the main functions of the computer.

 Intel introduced concerns with t est procedures on the No

- B attery and Off Mode tests. The setup for Category 3 Products should comprehend integrated charger devi c es (like notebooks) and allow testing similar to ENERGY STAR for computers, additional with:

o B attery removed, or

o Battery fully charged (if battery can’t be removed)

Otherwise , only the No

- Load power of the EPS get’s measured, which doesn’ t reflect the O ff power of the integrated device.

 Intel reviewed documentation, definitions and table references that Victor Petrolati indicated would likely get addressed in the DOE ruling. Victor noted that some of the substantive issues listed may not be addressed in the test methodology ruling.

 Henry and Victor agreed that although some of the issues may not be addressed in the test methodology ruling, the specification limit setting procedures may be able accommodate adders for functions outside of battery charging.2



## Next Steps

 Henry Wong will revise and update the document for official entry to the docket on battery chargers.

 Henry Wong to work with ITI to engage with the DOE on addressing these concerns in either the test methodology or limit setting rulings on Battery Charger Systems.
March 9 , 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Federal Aviation Administration UAS Integration Office

RE: Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 11258

, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0898

Dear Sir or Madam:

Bechtel Equipment Operations, Inc. ( “P etitioner ” or “O perator ” ) respectfully requests an

amendment to its existing Section 333 Exemption No. 11258 ( the “Exemption”) to add

additional aircraft to the list of approved unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

By a letter dated April 2, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) issued Exemption

No. 11258 to Petitioner allowing aerial imaging in construction operations. The conditions set

forth in Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0898 have not changed since Exemption No. 11258 was granted

. Conditions and Limitation No. 1 of the Exemption, in pertinent part, provides “ [p]roposed

operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this

exemption.” Accordingly, Petitioner requests this amendment so that it can operate the

following UAS models.

Model FAA Exemption Certifying the Model

1. Aeryon SkyRanger 11213

2. Aibot X6 11545A

3. Asctec Falcon 8 11268

4. DJI Inspire 1 12369

5. DJI Phantom 3 12820

6. DJI Phantom 4 See note below.

7. DJI S900 11844

8. DJI S1000+ 11527

9. Event38 E384 11166

10. FreeFly ALTA 12092A

11. Kespry 11455A

12. Microdrones MD4

- 1000 11522Bechtel Equipment Operations Inc.

1006 Park West Dr. Sugar Land, TX 77478

T: +(281) 632

- 5347 | C: +(346) 901

- 0113 rfergus2@bechtel.com

T: +(281) 637

- 4224 | C: +(281) 202

- 8168 jtcotton@bechtel.com 13. PrecisionHawk Lancaster 11446A

14. RIEGL RiCOPTER 11581A

15. Sensefly eBee RTK 11956

16. Sensefly eBee eXom 11263A

17. TerraHawk 12785A

18. Trimble UX5 HP 11110B

19. Trimble ZX5 11110B

With exception of the DJI Phantom 4, e ach of the UAS models listed above have been approved

by the FAA in previous exemptions , as noted, and meet the size, safety, and performance

characteristics as required under the operator’s exemption and Section 333 of the 2012 FAA

Modernization and Reform Act. The DJI Phantom 4 has not been previou sly approved in prior

exemptions but maintains the same size, safety, and performance characteristics under the

operator’s exemption and Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act.

The operator ’ s existing safety standard s and procedures outl ined in Exemption No. 11258 will

apply to the operation of the additional aircraft. Operator will follow the recommended

mainte nance and operat ion parameters set forth by the respective UAS manufacturer of each

aircraft

.

Please contact Bechtel Equipment Operations, Inc. with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Wyatt Ferguson

c c: Paul D. Jones

Senior Counsel

Bechtel Global Corporation

50 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

+1.415.768.2281

pjones@bechtel.com
§ 230.16 Lead and cooperating agencies. Lead agency, joint lead agency, and cooperating agency designation and responsibilities are covered in 40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6. The district commander is authorized to enter into agreements with regional offices of other agencies as required by 40 CFR 1501.5(c). District or division commanders will consult with HQUSACE (CECW-RE), WASH DC 20314-1000 prior to requesting resolution by CEQ as outlined by 40 CFR 1501.5 (e) and (f). ( a ) *Lead Agency.* The Corps will normally be lead agency for Corps civil works projects and will normally avoid joint lead agency arrangements. Lead agency status for regulatory actions will be determined on the basis of 40 CFR 1501.5(c).
( b ) *Corps as a Cooperating Agency.* For cooperating agency designation the Corps area of expertise or jurisdiction by law is generally flood control, navigation, hydropower and Corps regulatory responsibilities. See Appendix II of CEQ regulations (49 FR 49750, December 21, 1984).
#### § 3.55-25 Sector Humboldt Bay Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator Zone.

The Sector Humboldt Bay office is located in McKinleyville, CA. The boundaries of Sector Humboldt Bay's Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator Zone start in the north by a line bearing 264T from the coastal point of the Oregon-California border (42°00.0′ N./124°13.0′ W.), on the south by a line bearing 270T from the coastal point of the Mendecino-Sonoma County, CA, border (38°47.0′ N./123°30.0′ W.), and on the west by the outermost extent of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The inland Area of Responsibility (AOR) includes the entirety of the following California counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendecino, Siskiyou, Trinity, Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Lake, Colusa, Butte, Plumas, Lassen, and Modoc.

[USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39170, July 1, 2013]
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-36,893]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the U.S. Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 22, 1999 applicable to workers of Calabrian Chemical Corporation, CuC1 Department, Port Neches, Texas. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 14, 2000 (FR 65 2432).                

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of Cuprous Chloride (CuC1). New information provided by the State shows that Chemall, Inc., Kingwood, Texas is the parent firm of Calabrian Chemical Company, located in Port Neches, Texas. New information also shows that workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account at Chemall, Inc., Kingwood, Texas.

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Calabrian Chemical Corporation, CuC1 Department who were adversely affected by increased imports of Cuprous Chloride (CuC1).

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-36,893 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of the CuC1 Department engaged in employment related to the production of Cuprous Chloride (CuC1) at Chemall, Inc., Calabrian Chemical Corporation, Port Neches, Texas who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 20, 1998 through December 22, 2001 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of May, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-14470 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Subject: Relationship between W126 annual values and 3-year average

From: David Mintz OAR/OAQPS/AQAD/AQAG

To: Reconsideration of the 2008 Oz one NAAQS Docket (E PA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172)

Memo to Docket

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the relationship between annual W126 values and the 3-year averages of the annual values. The annual W126 value can be quite variable from year-to-year, ranging by as much as 28 ppm-hour s in a 3-year period at a single monitoring site.

Given the form of the proposed secondary stan dard is a 3-year average of annual W126 values, it is important to understand the rela tionship between the av erage and single-year values. Because relatively high 1-year values can occur in a given 3-year period, there is a question of what level of a 3-year standard will “protect against” single-year peaks. The scatter plot below shows the county-level comparison of the annual W126 values for 2007, 2008, and 2009 plotted against the 3-year av erage. (The annual values are the highest among all monitors in the county in ea ch year. The 3-year average is the highest average among all monitors in the county.)

Based on the underlying data, a hypothetical 3-year/13 ppm-hours standard protects against annual W126 values above 15 ppm-hours for 79 percent of counties. That is, 424 of the 535 counties meeting a 3-year/13 ppm- hours standard have no annual W126 value above 15 in any year of the 3-year period.

In terms of county-years (i.e. the number of counties times the number of years in the analysis), 93 percent of th e county-years meeting a 3-year /13-ppm-hours standard also meet a 1-year/15 ppm-hours level. That is, 1492 of the 1605 county-years meeting a 3- year/13-ppm-hours standard also m eet a 1-year/15 ppm-hours level.

Notes on data source and handling: For this comparison, 2007-2009 monitoring data were obtained from EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS). Annual and three-year av erage W126 values were computed for each

monitor in accordance with th e data handling procedures in the proposed 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix P ( http://www.epa.gov/air/ ozonepollution/fr/20100119.pdf ).
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 

          - [NV-930-1430-ET; NEV-042819] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Public Land Order. 

# SUMMARY:

This order revokes a Secretarial order insofar as it affects 1,262.05 acres of public lands withdrawn for the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. The lands are no longer needed for reclamation purposes, and the revocation is necessary to facilitate a pending land exchange. The lands are temporarily closed to surface entry and mining due to an overlapping segregation for an exchange proposal. The lands have been and will remain open to mineral leasing. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 3, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520-0006, 775-861-6532. 

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows: 

1. The Secretarial Order dated July 2, 1902, which withdrew public lands for the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described lands: 

## Mount Diablo Meridian 

T. 20 N., R. 25 E., 

                            Sec. 4, lot 5, lots 10 to 16, inclusive, lots 18 to 19, inclusive, lots 22 to 25, inclusive, and S                            1/2                            ;                         

Sec. 6, lots 8 to 23, inclusive. 

The areas described aggregate 1,262.05 acres in Washoe and Lyon Counties. 

2. At 9 a.m. on July 3, 2000, the lands will be opened to the operation of the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid applications received at or prior to 9 a.m. on July 3, 2000, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order of filing. 

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Sylvia V. Baca,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 00-13864 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
_______________________________________ __ ________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 14, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128283(45) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MARCIA VAN TIL, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices SC: 128283 v COA: 250539 Ottawa CC: 02-042717-NO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellant for adjournment of the oral argum ent and submission of this case is considered and it is GRANTED. The Clerk is direct ed to place this case on the May, 2006 Session Calendar for argument and submission.

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

March 14, 2006

Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

____________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128364 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE ESTATE OF IDA E. SPRENKLE-HILL 

GEORGE H. HILL,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

 SC: 128364 

v COA: 248783

 Barry Probate Ct: 2002-023531-DA 

LESLIE R. FLINT,

Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

DAVID H. TRIPP, Personal Representative, 

Respondent. 

On order of the Court, the order of October 7, 2005 which directed the 

hearing of oral argument on the application for leave to appeal is VACATED and leave 

to appeal is DENIED because we are no longer persuaded the questions presented should 

be reviewed by this Court. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 5, 2006 

Clerk
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ISRAEL ZUNUN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-18

[May 19, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Daliah H. Weiss, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2012-CF-009727-AXXX-MB.

Israel Zunun, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 401.67 Explosive vessels.

A vessel carrying explosives, either Government or commercial, as defined in the Dangerous Cargo Act of the United States and in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, Class 1, Divisions 1.1 to 1.5 inclusive, shall be deemed for the purpose of these Regulations to be an explosive vessel.