alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**U.S. Environmental Protection A gency**  **Office of A ir Quality** 

**Planning & Standards** 

### Res **ources** The links below pro vide more information on the p roposed rule : C arbon Pollution Standards http://www2.epa.gov/carbon - pollution - standards Proposed Rule http://www2.epa.gov/carbon - pollution - standards/regulatory - actions 

### Submitting Comments EPA will accept comment s on the proposal until December 1, 2014. Comments, identified by Docket ID No. **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2010 -**  **0682** , may be submitted by

one of the following methods:  **Federal eRulemaking**  **Portal:** http://www.regulations.gov/#!home follow the online instruction s for submitting comments.  **Email:** A - and - R - Docket@epa.gov - include docket ID N o. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2013 - 0602 in the subject line of the message.  **Fax:** (202) 566 - 9744  **Mail:** Send your comments to:

Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T Attention Docket ID No. OAR

–2013 - 0603 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460  **Express mail,**  **commercial delivery,**  **hand delivery**  **or courier:**  Such deliveries are onl y accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA WJC West Building 1301 Constitution Av enue, NW Washington, DC 20004 **The public comment period will end December 1**  **, 2014.**



# Proposed Rule Information **EPA Workshop for on Proposed**  **Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants U.S. Environmental Protection A** **gency Office of A** **ir Quality**

**Planning & Standards** 

### Points **of Contact For questions about the proposed rule**  **Environmen tal Protection Agency**  Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards Amy Vasu Phone: (919) 541 - 3608 Email: vasu.amy @epa.gov **Environmental Protection Agency**  Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards Marguerite McLamb Phone: ( 919 ) 541 - 7858 Email: mclamb.marguerite@epa.gov
No. 11-719.

#### Doyle *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2022-1718: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"L40olMkgJb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1718-in-re-universal-electronics-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2022-1718: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1718-in-re-universal-electronics-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=L40olMkgJb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2022-1718: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"L40olMkgJb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2022-1718 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.407 Action on petitions.

If the Commission determines that the petition discloses sufficient reasons in support of the action requested to justify the institution of a rulemaking proceeding, and notice and public procedure thereon are required or deemed desirable by the Commission, an appropriate notice of proposed rule making will be issued. In those cases where notice and public procedure thereon are not required, the Commission may issue a final order amending the rules. In all other cases the petition for rule making will be denied and the petitioner will be notified of the Commission's action with the grounds therefor.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JASON SCOTT LITTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0978

[February 1, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502021CF000237AMB.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
9 June 2016

248PA13-2

#### The Estate of Donna S. Ray, by Thomas D. Ray and Robert A. Wilson, IV, Administrators of the Estate of Donna S. Ray, and Thomas D. Ray, Individually v. B. Keith Forgy, M.D., PA., Individually and as Agent/Apparent Agent of Grace Health Care System, Inc., Blue Ridge Health Care Systems, Inc., Carolinas Health Care System, Inc., and as an Agent/ Apparent Agent, Employee, and Shareholder of Mountain View Surgical Associates, Grace Hospital, Inc., Grace Health Care System, Inc., Blue Ridge Health Care System, Inc., and Carolinas Health Care System, Inc.

1. Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-236)

1. Denied

2. Defs’ Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Dismissed as moot

Jackson, Beasley, and Ervin, JJ.,

recused
From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Attachments: 

All, 

Muldoon, Albert (OST) 

gjackson@jonesboroairport.org; hperrin@jonesboro.org 

Shane Storz; "Cindy Stork"; Schlemmer. Kevin COST) 

EAS at Jonesboro, AR- Request for Comments- Due January 7, 2014 

Friday, December 06, 2013 2:20:56 PM --' 

Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at Jonesboro, AR, Docket DOT-OST-1997-2935 CFinall.pdf 

I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation 

at Jonesboro, and to give you an opportunity to submit comments on the record before we 

submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. 

The community is currently served by Multi Aero Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One (Air Choice 

One) which provides 18 weekly nonstop round trips to St. Louis using nine-passenger Cessna 

Grand Caravan aircraft. In anticipation of the end of Air Choice One's current contract on 

February 28, 2014, we issued Order 2013-10-12 (October 22, 2013), soliciting proposals from 

carriers interested in providing EAS at Jonesboro for a new rate term, for service levels 

consistent with what the community currently receives. In response to that Order, we 

received one proposal, from Air Choice One, the incumbent. The proposal contained options 

for either a two or four-year contract. 

I have briefly summarized the proposal below. A full copy of the proposal is attached to this 

email and is also available online at www.regulations.gov by searching for docket: DOTOST-1997-2935. 

Air Choice One's proposal contemplates continuing status quo service at Jonesboro. All 

service would continue to be provided on nine-passenger Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft. 

The carrier proposes to continue its current service level, providing 18 weekly nonstop round 

trips to St. Louis for an annual subsidy of $1,942,890 (two years) or $1,923,462 (four years). 

We request that you examine the proposal carefully and contact the carrier with any 

questions you may have regarding its proposal. The Department is also reviewing Air Choice 

One's proposal. Please provide us your comments no later than January 7, 2014. We will 

carefully consider your comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant 

Secretary for a decision. 

Please submit your comments via email to EAS@dot.gov or by fax to (202) 366-7638. If you 

have any questions, please feel free to contact A.J. Muldoon of my staff at 

albert.muldoon@dot.gov or (202) 366-1058. 

Regards, 

Kevin Schlemmer 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis
#### § 302-14.100 How should we administer our home marketing incentive payment program?

Your goal in using an incentive payment program is to reduce your overall relocation costs. You must not make a home marketing incentive payment that exceeds the savings you realize from the reduced fees/expenses you pay the relocation services company.
```

[Federal Register: February 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 38)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 10524]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe11-11]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

33 CFR Part 334

 
Restricted Area, Potomac River, Marine Corps Base Quantico, 
Quantico, VA

AGENCY: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is correcting a final 
rule that appeared in the Federal Register of February 4, 2011 (76 FR 
6327), establishing a restricted area in the waters of the Potomac 
River extending offshore from the Marine Corps Air Facility (MCAF) at 
Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCB Quantico), located in Quantico, 
Virginia.

DATES: Effective March 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, 
Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-
761-4922 or Mr. Steve Elinsky, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore 
District, Regulatory Branch, at 410-962-4503 or by e-mail at 
steve.elinsky@usace.army.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2011-2478 appearing on page 6327 
in the Federal Register of Friday, February 4, 2011, the following 
correction is made:

Sec.  334.235  [Corrected]

    On page 6328, in the third column, in Sec.  334.235, paragraph 
(b)(2), the sentence ``In addition, lighted, floating, small craft 
intrusion barriers will be placed across the Chopawamsic Creek channel 
at the entrance to the channel from the Potomac River and immediately 
west of the CSX railroad bridge.'' is corrected to read ``In addition, 
floating small craft intrusion barriers marked with reflective material 
will be placed across the Chopawamsic Creek channel at the entrance to 
the channel from the Potomac River and immediately west of the CSX 
railroad bridge.''

    Dated: February 22, 2011.
Jonathan A. Davis,
Deputy Chief, Operations and Regulatory Directorate of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. 2011-4277 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Aug-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                Sep-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Aug-31-1998
<CASH>                        1,403
<SECURITIES>                  8,408,801
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              8,515,204
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                8,515,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         174,496
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   1
<COMMON>                      10,560
<OTHER-SE>                    6,586,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,515,204
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              411,393
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              133,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  213,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.00
        


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WALBERT CRUZ,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2022-1418

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-3443-22-0015-I-1.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Walbert Cruz’s failure to file 

the court’s filing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 

15(a)(4), the statement concerning discrimination required by Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(1), or the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a),

Case: 22-1418 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2022
2 CRUZ v. MSPB

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This petition for review is dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. 

April 21, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 21, 2022

Case: 22-1418 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
               EXTRACTED FROM THE ARMCO INC. CONDENSED STATEMENT OF 
               CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL POSITION AND CONDENSED STATEMENT 
               OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND RETAINED DEFICIT AND IS 
               QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
               STATEMENTS. 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                            175,200
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     191,600
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       265,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  637,700
<PP&E>                          1,284,100
<DEPRECIATION>                    627,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,907,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             371,300
<BONDS>                           337,000
<COMMON>                            1,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                       185,900
<OTHER-SE>                       (377,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,907,700
<SALES>                           931,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  931,600
<CGS>                             833,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     833,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 17,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    30,900
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                29,600
<DISCONTINUED>                      1,300
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       30,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.24
        

</TABLE>
§ 22.1 Basis and purpose. This section contains a concise general statement of the basis and purpose of the rules in this part, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(c). ( a ) *Basis.* These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 *et. seq.*
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of these rules is to establish the requirements and conditions under which radio stations may be licensed and used in the Public Mobile Services.
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 70 FR 19307, Apr. 13, 2005]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 126 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16478]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Enterprise Computer Telephony Forum (``ECTF'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 21, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Enterprise Computer 
Telephony Form (``ECTF'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Bosch Telecom 
GmbH, Frankfort, GERMANY; Telesoft Design, Inc., Dorset, ENGLAND; 
Cyberlog International, Inc., San Antonio, TX; SI Logic Limitd, 
Aldermaston, ENGLAND; Digi International, Minnetonka, MN; and Nokia 
Networks, Helsinki, FINLAND have been added as Principal Members. Sail 
Labs GesmbH, Vienna, AUSTRIA; RadiSys Corporation, Houston, TX; and 
8 x 8, Inc., Santa Clara, CA have been added as Auditing Members. Also, 
Nokia Telecommunications, Helsinki, FINLAND has been dropped as a 
Principal Member; and Texas MicroSystems, Houston, TX has been dropped 
as an Auditing Member to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Enterprise Computer Telephony Form 
(``ECTF'') intends to file additional written notification disclosing 
all changes in membership.
    On February 20, 1996, Enterprise Computer Telephony Forum 
(``ECTF'') filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of 
the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 13, 1996 (61 FR 
222074).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 8, 
1999. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16478 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 126 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40129-40130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Digital Imaging Group, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 11, 2000, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Digital Imaging Group, Inc. 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Flashpoint Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA; Nuwave 
Technologies, Inc., Fairfield, NJ; Kaidan Incorporated, Feasterville, 
PA; MSlide, Inc., Sausalito, CA; printQuick.com, Carlsbad, CA; ImageID, 
Ltd., Coral Gables, FL; KB Gear Interactive, Minneapolis, MN; Future 
Image, San Mateo, CA; Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA; and 
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA have been added as 
parties to this venture. Also, busybox.com, Inc., San Francisco, CA; 
Skrudland Photo, Inc., Austin, TX; Questra Corporation, Rochester, NY; 
Be Here Corporation, Cupertino, CA; Thomas Public Relations, Inc., 
Huntington, NY; and Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA have been 
dropped as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Digital Imaging Group, Inc. intends 
to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On September 25, 1997, Digital Imaging Group, Inc. filed its 
original

[[Page 40130]]

notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60530).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 2, 
1999. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on April 28, 2000 (65 FR 24982).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16482 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M