alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15570]



[[Page 38535]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP00-381-000]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

June 15, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 7, 2000, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), P.O. Box 20008, Owensboro, Kentucky 42304, filed in 
Docket No. CP00-381-000 a request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 
157.211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) 
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct and 
operate delivery point facilities for service to Quivira Realty, Inc. 
(Quivira), in Johnson County, Kansas, under Quivira's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, pursuant to section 7 of 
the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on 
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may 
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed..us/online/htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).
    Williams requests authorization to construct and operate delivery 
point facilities to serve Quivira, which requires the gas for 
residential air conditioning use. It is stated that Williams will use 
the facilities to transport up to 12 Dt equivalent of natural gas per 
day on a firm basis pursuant to section 284.223 of the Commission's 
regulations. Williams estimates the cost of the facilities at $9,100 
and states that it would be reimbursed for the cost by Quivira. It is 
asserted that Williams has sufficient capacity to render the proposed 
service without detriment or disadvantage to its other existing 
customers and that Williams' tariff does not prohibit the addition of 
delivery point facilities. It is further asserted that the proposal 
will have no significant impact on Williams' peak day and annual 
deliveries.
    Any questions regarding the application may be directed to David N. 
Roberts, Manager of Certificates and Tariffs, at (270) 688-6712, 
Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc., P.O. Box 20008, Owensboro, 
Kentucky 42304.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15570 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### Geohydrology of the regional aquifer system, western Snake River plain, southwestern Idaho

By: G. D. Newton

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1408G

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Geohydrology of the regional aquifer system, western Snake River plain, southwestern Idaho(1989)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5562 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5562

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom a case 
   is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict 
                      litigation cases for trial.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multidistrict Litigation Act of 
2000''.

SEC. 2. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

    Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
        ``or ordered transferred to the transferee or other district 
        under subsection (i)'' after ``terminated''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any action transferred under 
this section by the panel may be transferred for trial purposes, by the 
judge or judges of the transferee district to whom the action was 
assigned, to the transferee or other district in the interest of 
justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
    ``(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under paragraph (1) 
shall be remanded by the panel for the determination of compensatory 
damages to the district court from which it was transferred, unless the 
court to which the action has been transferred for trial purposes also 
finds, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the 
interests of justice, that the action should be retained for the 
determination of compensatory damages.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to any civil action 
pending on or brought on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5562

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom a case 
   is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict 
                      litigation cases for trial.
```
{"agency":"CNCS","generated":"2021-07-11 03:12:53","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"5"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["CNCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["3"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["5"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["12"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q3"}
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComparison of wind and turbulence measurements from Doppler lidar and instrumented aircraftWind fields were measured with the ground based lidar, NOAA Wave Propagation Laboratory and with the NASA B-57B instrumented aircraft. The remotely sensed winds are compared with the in situ aircraft measurements. Three flight plans were carried out during the two different field programs. At NASA/MSFC the aircraft circled while the lidar scanned conically and the aircraft flew 6 deg approach path along the fixed lidar beam. The aircraft flew an approach along the lidar beam directed south-north (parallel to the mountain range) and a climbout along the lidar beam which alternately shifted east-west (perpendicular to the mountain range). Turbulence intensities and spectra were calculated from the temporal fluctuations in the lidar-measured radial wind speed component. These field tests provided unique sets of data to examine the mean wind and turbulence measurements made by remote sensing instruments. The comparison of aircraft measured turbulence intensities and spectra with lidar time histories of radial wind speed were in good agreement.Document ID19850023416Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHuang, K. H.*(FWG Associates, Inc. Tullahoma, TN, United States)*Frost, W.*(FWG Associates, Inc. Tullahoma, TN, United States)*Ringnes, E. A.*(FWG Associates, Inc. Tullahoma, TN, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJune 18, 1985Subject CategoryMeteorology And ClimatologyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:171535NASA-CR-171535Accession Number85N31729Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-36188Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850023416.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES--OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Silverstar Holdings,  Ltd. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-K for the year  ended  June 30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Clive
Kabatznik,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934; and

         (2)      The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations  of the  Company  at the dates and for the  periods
                  indicated.

                              By: /s/ Clive Kabatznik
                                  ------------------------
                                  Clive Kabatznik
                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                  (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
                                  Date: September 28, 2005


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section  906,  has been  provided to  Silverstar
Holdings,  Ltd. and will be retained by Silverstar Holdings,  Ltd. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      -36-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8284

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.
KENNETH W. KEMP, a/k/a Al, a/k/a L, a/k/a El,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00117-jcc-2)

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth W. Kemp, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kenneth W. Kemp appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motions for reconsideration of the denial of his

motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See United States v. Kemp , No. 2:93-cr-00117-
jcc-2 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 27, 2008 & entered Aug. 28, 2008;
filed Sept. 24, 2008 & entered Sept. 25, 2008). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1


Subsidiaries of STATS ChipPAC Ltd.



STATS ChipPAC Test Services, Inc.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Delaware, United States

Winstek Semiconductor Corporation
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Taiwan, R.O.C.

STATS Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: British Virgin Islands

STATS ChipPAC Test Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

STATS ChipPAC, Inc.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Delaware, United States

STATS ChipPAC (Barbados) Ltd.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Barbados

ChipPAC International Company Limited
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: British Virgin Islands

STATS ChipPAC (BVI) Limited
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: British Virgin Islands

ChipPAC Luxembourg S.a.R.L.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Luxembourg

ChipPAC Liquidity Management Hungary Limited Liability Company
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Hungary

STATS ChipPAC Shanghai Co., Ltd.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

STATS ChipPAC Korea Ltd.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: The Republic of Korea

STATS ChipPAC Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Malaysia
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK MARION MACY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DAN HOWARD, Master Corporal at

Idaho State Police; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35992

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00255-REB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Ronald E. Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted July 22, 2014***

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Mark Marion Macy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations resulting

FILED

AUG 01 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** Macy consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
from a police car chase that culminated in the death of Macy’s wife. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630

F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Macy’s § 1983 claims against

defendants Howard and Lind on the basis of acts that occurred on February 7,

2011, as barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Idaho Code

Ann. § 5-219(4) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Knox

v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (for § 1983 claims, federal courts

apply the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations and federal law for

determining accrual; a § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason

to know of the injury that forms the basis of the action). Contrary to Macy’s

contentions, Macy is not entitled to equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. See

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394 (2007) (federal courts look to state law

provisions for tolling the limitations period); Wilhelm v. Frampton, 158 P.3d 310,

312 (Idaho 2007) (Idaho courts cannot equitably toll statute of limitations); J.R.

Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int’l Inc., 887 P.2d 1039, 1041 (Idaho 1994) (equitable

2 13-35992
estoppel is available in Idaho only if plaintiff lacks actual or constructive

knowledge of the truth). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Macy’s motion for

appointment of counsel because Macy failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised in the

opening brief, including Macy’s other dismissed claims. See Padgett v. Wright,

587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-35992
#### § 102-118.580 May a TSP appeal a prepayment audit decision of the GSA Transportation Audits Division?

Yes, the TSP may appeal to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) under guidelines established in this subpart F, or file a claim with the United States Court of Federal Claims. The TSP's request for review must be received by the CBCA in writing within 6 months (not including times of war) from the date the settlement action was taken or within the periods of limitation specified in 31 U.S.C. 3726, as amended, whichever is later. Filing instructions including where and how to file are available at *cbca.gov/howto/rules/transportation.html#transportation.*

[78 FR 71529, Nov. 29, 2013, as amended at 87 FR 32326, May 31, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,801
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,084
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                22,646
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     31,847
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,527
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,706
<LOANS>                                        436,852
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 535,100
<DEPOSITS>                                     432,024
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,495
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,569
<LONG-TERM>                                     23,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           559
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 535,100
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 33,433
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,006
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,712
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,151
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              20,923
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,562
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,589
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      101
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 267
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,534
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,876
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,876
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.11
<LOANS-NON>                                        957
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    376
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,558
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,658
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,658
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>