alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 09161

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

x 09161\09161_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09161\09161_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

09161\09161_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 09161\09161_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09161\09161_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09161\09161_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09161\09161_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09161\09161_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09161\AEP AM 09161 Cont. Tables A-4 & A-5.xls Plant submitted survey file

09161\Certification Statement Plant ID 09161.pdf Plant certification statement

09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_A5-2 Aerial MAP-2 (Quarrier).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_A5-2 MAP-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_A5-2 MAP-4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_A5-2 MAP-5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_A5-3 Quarrier Flow Diagram, WB-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_A5-3 Water Balance, Diagram WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D2-3 EPRI Rprt 1008820 CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D2-3 EPRI Rprt 1013035 CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D2-3 EPRI Rprt 1020365 CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D2-3 FGD WW Study Excerpt CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D2-3 FGD WW Study Sec 5 CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D2-3 FGD WW Study Tier 2 CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D3-1 Diagram D-1, POND-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D3-1 Diagram WWT-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_D5-10 Bid Proposal Exhibit B Attachment_CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09161\Supplemental Documents\09161_ELGs ICR submittal letter 10-13-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09161\Supplemental Documents\AEP AM 09161 A5-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Skip Navigation

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Woods Hole Science Center

##### GIS of Selected Geophysical and Core Data in the Northern Gulf of    Mexico  Continental Slope Collected by the U.S. Geological Survey

----

Skip Navigation
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		URL: woodshole.er.usgs.gov/pubs/of2005-1071/htmldocs/figure3.htm		Page Contact Information: WHSC Webmaster		This page last modified on Tuesday, 25-Aug-2009 14:54:08 EDT
#### § 22.201 Paging geographic area authorizations are subject to competitive bidding.

Mutually exclusive initial applications for paging geographic area licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart and part 90 of this chapter.

[67 FR 45366, July 9, 2002]
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


The undersigned officers hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended
September 28, 2003 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.


Signed this 12th day of November, 2003.

/ /s/ Harry V. Maccarrone
------------------------------------------------
Harry V. Maccarrone,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 25.290 Responsibility of licensee for blanket-licensed earth station operation.

The holder of an FCC blanket earth station license is responsible for operation of any earth station under that license. Operators of satellite networks and systems must not transmit communications to or from such earth stations in the United States unless such communications are authorized under a service contract with the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket earth station license or under a service contract with another party with authority for such operation delegated by such a blanket licensee.

[84 FR 53659, Oct. 8, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4488 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4488

  To amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 to provide 
  that the duties performed by individuals separating from Government 
 service in order to receive a voluntary separation incentive payment 
   may not be performed by any person under contract with the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1994

Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to 
   the Committees on Government Operations and Post Office and Civil 
                                Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 to provide 
  that the duties performed by individuals separating from Government 
 service in order to receive a voluntary separation incentive payment 
   may not be performed by any person under contract with the United 
                                States.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF SERVICE CONTRACTS.

    Section 5(g) of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 
(Public Law 103-226; 108 Stat. 117) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(g) Limitation on Procurement of Service Contracts.--The duties 
and responsibilities of an individual who separates from Government 
service in order to receive a voluntary separation incentive payment 
under section 3 may not be performed, in whole or in part, by any 
person under contract with the United States.''.

                                      <all>
```
<PAGE>   1




EXHIBIT 11.1


                          CONNECTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

                STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                             YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                             ------------------------
                                                                   1996                1995                1994
                                                                   ----                ----                ----
<S>                                                                 <C>                <C>                 <C>
HISTORICAL
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding                 6,825                877                 711
Shares related to Staff Accounting Bulletin topic 4D:
    Common stock, stock options and warrants                           --                936                 943
    Preferred stock                                                    --              2,622               2,622
                                                                    -----              -----               -----
Total shares used in computing net loss per share                   6,825              4,435               4,276
                                                                    =====              =====               =====



Net loss                                                         $(18,514)          $(10,372)            $(7,850)



HISTORICAL NET LOSS PER SHARE                                      $(2.71)            $(2.34)             $(1.84)
                                                                   ======             ======              ======

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP00-378-000]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

June 14, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 6, 2000, as supplemented on June 13, 2000, 
Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore), P.O. Box 1769, 
Dover, Delaware 19903-1769, filed in Docket No. CP00-378-000 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 a tap and meter 
station in Kent County, Delaware to provide interruptible service to 
First State Power Management, Inc. (First State), an end user, under 
Eastern Shore's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-40-000, 
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).
    Eastern Shore indicates that, in addition to the tap and meter 
station, it will construct a delivery lateral 2,425 feet of 8-inch 
pipeline to deliver the gas to First State, which it will construct 
under Section157.208(a) of the Commission's Regulations as an eligible 
facility. Eastern Shore states that it will use these facilities to 
deliver up to 800,000 dt per year on an interruptible basis pursuant to 
the terms of Eastern Shore's IT rate schedule.
    Eastern Shore estimates the cost of the tap and meter station at 
$95,000, and the cost of the pipeline lateral at $195,000, all of which 
it will be reimbursed by First State. It is asserted that Eastern 
Shore's tariff does not prohibit the addition of delivery point 
facilities.
    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. 00-15483 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
272A14

#### State v. Jonathan Douglas Richardson (DEATH)

Def’s Motion Regarding Sealed Transcript

Allowed
#### § 18.303 Prohibited frequency bands.

Operation of ISM equipment within the following safety, search and rescue frequency bands is prohibited: 490-510 kHz, 2170-2194 kHz, 8354-8374 kHz, 121.4-121.6 MHz, 156.7-156.9 MHz, and 242.8-243.2 MHz.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,

Appellant

v.

PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC 

CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, GOPRO, 

INC., GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., GARMIN 

USA, INC.,

Appellees

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________

2020-1948

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

00131.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

RANDALL T. GARTEISER, Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Tyler, 

TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by MICHAEL 

SCOTT FULLER, CHRISTOPHER A. HONEA; KIRK ANDERSON, 

Budo Law PC, Arvada, CO; PETER JOSEPH CORCORAN, III, 

Case: 20-1948 Document: 116 Page: 1 Filed: 10/14/2022
Corcoran IP Law PLLC, Texarkana, TX.

 MELANIE L. BOSTWICK, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all appellees. Appellees 

Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North 

America also represented by T. VANN PEARCE, JR. 

 KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN, KXT Law, LLP, Redwood 

City, CA, for appellee GoPro, Inc.

 JENNIFER C. BAILEY, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, 

for appellees Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. 

Also represented by ADAM PRESCOTT SEITZ. 

 JOSHUA K. HANDELL, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, MELISSA N. PATTERSON; SARAH E. CRAVEN,

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MONICA BARNES LATEEF, FARHEENA 

YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

October 14, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1948 Document: 116 Page: 2 Filed: 10/14/2022
700 P.2d 953

#### Robert J. NENOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan M. GRAHAM, and/or David K. Swanson of Swanson, Setzke & Cushman, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 15313.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

April 15, 1985.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1985.

Robert J. Nenoff, pro se.

Raymond W. Setzke, Jr. and David Kenneth Swanson, Boise, for defendants-respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The genealogy of this particular appeal begins with a suit filed by Mary Gasper against her nephew, Robert Nenoff. According to Nenoff, Gasper twice instructed her attorneys, Susan Graham and David Swanson, to dismiss the suit. It was not dismissed. Judgment was entered in favor of Gasper; but Nenoff did not appeal. Instead, he brought this action against Graham and Swanson, alleging that they violated their retainer agreement with Gasper by refusing to dismiss the earlier suit and *551exerted influence over her for the purpose of “enlarging their attorney fees.” He sought to recover damages for his mental anguish, loss of income, and the expenses he incurred in defending the suit.

Graham and Swanson moved to dismiss under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and filed a supporting affidavit. Nenoff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b), the district court treated the motion as one for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the court granted the motion, stating: “This court in reviewing the issues the plaintiff brought in the previous case ... is of the opinion that these are the same issues he is bringing now and therefore he should be collaterally estopped from bringing these issues again.” Nenoff appealed. We affirm.

The district court below apparently had before it at least some of the record from the first suit. We are not similarly blessed. The record on appeal does not contain the pleadings, the transcript, or the trial judge’s opinion from the first suit. We are unable, therefore, to determine whether the issues raised by Nenoff in the present case actually were litigated in the first suit. If they were, Nenoff may indeed be foreclosed from raising the issues again. *See Shea v. Bader,*102 Idaho 697, 638 P.2d 894 (1981). “We cannot presume, from a silent record, that the [trial] court erred.” *First Security Bank of Idaho v. Absco Warehouse, Inc.,*104 Idaho 853, 857, 664 P.2d 281, 285 (Ct.App.1983). The appellant has “the burden to provide an adequate record on appeal so that it [can] be reviewed properly for error.” *Schneider v. Curry,*106 Idaho 264, 267, 678 P.2d 56, 59 (Ct.App.1984). The fact that Nenoff was a pro se litigant does not relieve him of this burden. *Id.*Under these standards, we are compelled to affirm the- district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants.

Graham and Swanson also request attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-121. Based on the record before us, we are constrained to hold that the appeal was pursued without foundation. Graham and Swanson are thus entitled to a reasonable attorney fee on appeal, in addition to their costs.
§ 60-300.25 Health insurance, life insurance and other benefit plans. ( a ) An insurer, hospital, or medical service company, health maintenance organization, or any agent or entity that administers benefit plans, or similar organizations may underwrite risks, classify risks, or administer such risks that are based on or not inconsistent with state law.
( b ) The contractor may establish, sponsor, observe or administer the terms of a bona fide benefit plan that are based on underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on or not inconsistent with state law.
( c ) The contractor may establish, sponsor, observe, or administer the terms of a bona fide benefit plan that is not subject to state laws that regulate insurance.
( d ) The contractor shall not deny a qualified disabled veteran equal access to insurance or subject a qualified disabled veteran to different terms or conditions of insurance based on disability alone, if the disability does not pose increased risks.
( e ) The activities described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section are permitted unless these activities are used as a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this part.
14eFR 

### Part 39 14910-13-PI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration



# 1).1

# 'b

, {Docket No. FAA-20IO"ir•..• **;:Directorate Identifiel'" 2010-NM-26o-AD; 

# 1&';£7 J-Oi 

## /-0(-/3 Amendment 39_"".'-(*; AD zt»9-u_**] R1N Z12O-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R se . airplanes, and Model C4-605R 

### Variant F airplanes (Collectively called AJOO"{)OO sc airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (fAA). Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. 

### "

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: above. This AD results frommaJ;ldatory continuing airworthiness information (MeA SUMMARY~ We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products 1 

## -v/)~ 1/-0 "..,"·"'0" I 

## A.W",lief 

# 'y'j~~,,-

I 

## Ie. 

# 1-t/O

IOf



# • • • 

# • • 

# • • originated by an aviation authorily ofanother country to identify and correct an unsa ; During a routine maintenance check on an AJOO-600 aeroplane. the operator found the pitch Imcoupling unit installed at an incorrect location. The pitch uncoupling unit was inverted with the rod assembly. After acomplete inspection ofall A300~600 aeroplanes of its fleet, the operator identified the same incorrect insLallationon another aeroplane
.
This condition, ifnot dcttcted and corrected, in combination with particular failure modes, could lead to loss of control ofthe aeroplane during the takeoff phase.
Subject: 

From: 

Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Off1ce of the Secretory 

of TransportatiOn 

Essential Air Service at Ironwood, Michigan! Ashland, 

Wisconsin (Docket DOT -OST -1996-1266), 

Manistee/Ludington, Michigan (Docket DOT -OST -1996-

1711 ), and Rhinelander, Wisconstn (Docket DOT -OST2;JY7109). ' /) KJ' ~ 

~~J.&( ~--~- EAS & Domestic Analysis Division, X-53 

Date: November 18, 2011 

Reply to Brian Swanson, 

Attn. of: X-53 Ext. 65392 

To: Dockets Operations, M-30 

By Order 2011-10-15, October 20, 2011, proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at 

any or all of the three communities identified above were due on November 18, 2011. 

American Airlines, with the support of Rhinelander, requested an extension to file a 

proposal. During our efforts to obtain approval of American Airlines' request from the 

two remaining communities included in Order 2011-10-15, Manistee/Ludington 

requested that the due date for proposals be extended further to December 5, 2011. 

Ironwood/ Ashland did not object to a December 5 due date. 

This is to advise all parties that we have decided to grant the requested extension to file 

EAS proposals at any or all three communities. Proposals must be received by no later 

than December 5, 2011.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-170]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos ER99-3531-000 and ER99-4384-000]


Southern Company Services, Inc.; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

December 29, 1999.
    Take notice that an informal conference will be convened in this 
proceeding on January 5 and 6, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., for the purpose of 
exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced docket. The 
Conference will be held at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant, as 
defined by 18 CFR 3895.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact Hollis J. Alpert at 
(202) 208-0783 or Theresa J. Burns at (202) 208-2160.
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-170 Filed 01-04-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-10-M