alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 53134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Southwest Research Institute: Cooperative 
Research Group on High Efficiency Durable Gasoline Engine

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 7, 2006, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute: 
Cooperative Research Group on High Efficiency Durable Gasoline Engine 
(``HEDGE'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. 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, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI has been 
added as a party 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 HEDGE intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 10, 2005, HEDGE 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 July 7, 
2005 (70 FR 39339).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 16, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36830).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-7518 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 230.6 Quotas and other restrictions. ( a ) Quotas for aboriginal subsistence whaling shall be set in accordance with the regulations of the Commission. Quotas shall be allocated to each whaling village or captain by the appropriate Native American whaling organization. The Assistant Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register, at least annually, aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas and any other limitations on aboriginal subsistence whaling deriving from regulations of the Commission. These quotas and restrictions shall also be incorporated in the relevant cooperative agreements.
( b ) The relevant Native American whaling organization shall monitor the whale hunt and keep tally of the number of whales landed and struck. When a quota is reached, the organization shall declare the whaling season closed, and there shall be no further whaling under that quota during the calendar year. If the organization fails to close the whaling season after the quota has been reached, the Assistant Administrator may close it by filing notification in the Federal Register.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK TAKEUCHI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JOHN M. MCHUGH, Secretary of the

Army *

,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 17205

D.C. No. 1:14

- cv

- 00299

- JMS

- KSC

MEMORANDUM * *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017 ***

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Patrick Takeuchi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his Title VII action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* Eric Fanning is substituted for his predecessor, John M. McHugh, as

Secretary of the Army under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17205

review de novo

. Vinieratos v. U.S. Dep’ t of Air Force Through Aldridge

, 939 F.2d

762, 767

- 68 (9th Cir. 1991) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Takeuchi’s Title VII action b ecause

Takeuchi failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See i d . at 772 (“T he law

requires an aggrieved federal employee to elect one exclusive administrative

remedy and to exhaust whatever remed y he chooses.”).

We do not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.

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

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      OF KALEIDOSCOPE VENTURE CAPITAL INC.





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kaleidoscope
      Venture Capital Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, the undersigned,
      Ron
      McIntyre, President and principal financial officer of Kaleidoscope Venture
      Capital Inc., does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
      ended June 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Kaleidoscope Venture Capital
      Inc.





Date:
      August 19, 2008





/s/
                Ron McIntyreRon
                McIntyrePresident
                and principal financial officer
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 Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 11 a.m., Central Time. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2360. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 11 a.m., Central Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing the comments to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     This meeting is not required to be open to the public, but because we are always interested in community input we will accept public comments. Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for dial-in information.                 

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: August 23, 2006. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. 06-7351 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### § 95.2701 Scope.

This subpart contains rules that apply only to the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTHONY WILLIAMS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 968

[ October 5, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Andrew L. Siegel , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 14566 CF10A

.

Anthony Williams, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, M AY a nd K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7600
VIRGIL FRANKLIN RYDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD REILLY, Chairman, U. S. Parole Commission, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-735-3) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virgil Franklin Ryder, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that mandamus relief is not appropriate where, as here, there are no extraordinary circumstances and there are other means of seeking the requested relief. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Thus, the district court did not err in construing Ryder's action as a habeas corpus petition rather than a petition for writ of mandamus. 2 PER CURIAM:Virgil Franklin Ryder appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his third 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. * We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Ryder's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Ryder v. Reilly , No. CA-97- 735-3 (E.D. Va., Oct. 3, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5220 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5220

    To provide for the acceptance by the Secretary of Education of 
  applications submitted by the local educational agency serving the 
   Window Rock Unified School District, Window Rock, Arizona, under 
   section 3 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st 
               Congress) for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 1994

Ms. English of Arizona (for herself and Mr. Coppersmith) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                                 Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the acceptance by the Secretary of Education of 
  applications submitted by the local educational agency serving the 
   Window Rock Unified School District, Window Rock, Arizona, under 
   section 3 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st 
               Congress) for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICATION BY WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA, LOCAL EDUCATIONAL 
              AGENCY FOR FUNDING UNDER SECTION 3 OF PUBLIC LAW 874, 
              81ST CONGRESS.

    Notwithstanding section 5(a)(2) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
(Public Law 874, 81st Congress; 20 U.S.C. 240(a)(2)) (as such section 
was in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the 
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994), the Secretary of Education 
shall accept from the local educational agency serving the Window Rock 
Unified School District, Window Rock, Arizona, applications for funding 
under section 3 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (as so in effect) for 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 as if such applications were timely received 
in accordance with section 222.10(a)(1) of title 34, Code of Federal 
Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
[Civ. No. 15560.

Second Dist., Div. One.

May 15, 1947.]

#### M. H. RAWJEE, Respondent, v. D. M. HATTON, Appellant.

Alexander K. Ginsburg and J. Howard Ziemann for Appellant.

G. V. Weikert for Respondent.

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract of purchase and sale of dillseed. This product is grown in India, and is used in the bakery trade in the United States in making rye bread. The contract provided for delivery of seed to the plaintiff ex-dock in the United States and fixed the purchase price at 9 cents per pound.

Defendant breached the contract; plaintiff proved the market price of the product at the time of the breach at 15 cents per pound; and was awarded damages in the sum of $7,392.

There is no conflict in the testimony respecting the contract or its breach. The defendant contends that he is not bound by the contract because the purchase price of the *695dillseed was fixed by O.P.A. at 7.5 cents per pound. However, when the parties learned of this situation they mutually changed the contract to read reeleaned dillseed in place of cleaned dillseed.

In the trade these terms have a definite meaning. Recleaned dillseed is that which has been processed so that practically all impurities have been taken out of it, whereas cleaned dill-seed is the product as it comes from the producer.

No maximum price of recleaned dillseed was fixed by O.P.A. Therefore this defense will not avail the defendant in such a case as this, in which the law awards a vendee damages for breach of a contract of purchase and sale.

Defendant also contends that the contract was impossible of performance because of a fire in Bombay, India, which destroyed warehouses and shipping facilities and made it impossible for dillseed to be shipped to fulfil the terms of the contract. The only evidence which defendant presented on this issue were certain communications from his supply houses in Bombay asserting this fact. Plaintiff presented a witness from Bombay who testified that the defendant’s supplier’s warehouses were not damaged by the fire, and that there was no condition beyond the power of the vendor to supply the dillseed.

Appellant complains of findings by the trial court, fixing the date of delivery of the goods, as contemplated by the contracting parties, and establishing the market value thereof on that date, essential proof in these cases. This presents the familiar situation wherein the trial court could have found either way, but having exercised its province to find for the prevailing party, and substantial evidence appearing in the record to support its findings, it is not the province of an appellate court to disturb them.

The evidence fully supports the findings and judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

York, P. J., and White, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied June 3, 1947, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was ■ denied July 10, 1947.
No. 11-10048.

#### Glenn *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 29.116 What noise reduction standards must I meet? You must prevent or minimize all noise that: ( a ) Adversely affects refuge resources or uses, taking into account frequency, magnitude, or duration; or
( b ) Exceeds levels that have been identified through monitoring as being acceptable to or appropriate for uses at the sites being monitored.
§ 29.40 What are the purpose and scope of the regulations in this subpart? ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to ensure that operators exercising non-Federal oil and gas rights within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) outside of Alaska use technologically feasible, least damaging methods to: ( 1 ) Protect Service-administered lands and waters, and resources of refuges;
( 2 ) Protect refuge wildlife-dependent recreational uses and experiences and visitor or employee health and safety; and
( 3 ) Conserve refuges for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
( b ) This subpart applies to all operators conducting non-Federal oil and gas operations outside of Alaska on Service-administered lands held in fee or less-than fee (excluding coordination areas) or Service-administered waters to the extent necessary to protect those property interests. These regulations do not apply to non-Federal surface locations within the boundaries of a refuge (*i.e.,* inholdings), except to the extent that activities associated with those operations, including access to an inholding, occur on Service-administered lands or waters.
( c ) This subpart is not intended to result in a taking of any property interest. The purpose of this subpart is to reasonably regulate operations to protect Service-administered lands and waters, resources of refuges, visitor uses and experiences, and visitor or employee health and safety.
Space for public service 

posters at Dulles Airport

An airport ready to assist passengers

Presenter: Charlie Leocha, Director 

Consumer Travel Alliance

December 16, 2013

1
Dulles Airport displays - Example 1

2
Dulles Airport displays - Example 2

3
Dulles Airport displays - Example 3

4
Dulles Airport displays - Example 4

5
Dulles Airport displays - Example 5

6
Dulles Airport displays - Example 6

7
Dulles Airport displays - Example 7

8
Dulles Airport displays - Example 8

9
Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Form 10-K of Severn
Bancorp, Inc. of our Report of Independent Auditors dated February 28, 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Severn Bancorp, Inc. as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the Severn Bancorp, Inc. annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                              ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, LLP

City, State:  Baltimore, Maryland

Date:  March 18, 2003
1 TheHonorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2370

___________ Michael D. Eanes, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jayne Montgomery, Clinical Director; * Western District of Missouri. * Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED] * John Moss, Phase II Supervising * Counselor; D.B. Overbey, Primary * Counselor, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: April 5, 2000 Filed: April 14, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. MichaelEanes, a Missouri inmate, appeals following the District Court’s 1 grant of summary judgment to Jayne Montgomery, Clinical Director of the Drug Treatment-2-

Program at the Ozark Correctional Center, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supp. III 1997) action. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude summary judgment was properly granted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 80.880 Vessel radio equipment. ( a ) Vessels operated solely within twenty nautical miles of shore must be equipped with a VHF radiotelephone installation as described in this subpart, and maintain a continuous watch on Channel 16.
( b ) Vessels operated solely within one hundred nautical miles of shore must be equipped with a medium frequency transmitter capable of transmitting J3E emission and a receiver capable of reception of J3E emission within the band 1710 to 2850 kHz, in addition to the VHF radiotelephone installation required by paragraph (a) of this section, and must maintain a continuous watch on 2182 kHz. Additionally, such vessels must be equipped with either: ( 1 ) A single sideband radiotelephone capable of operating on all distress and safety frequencies in the medium frequency and high frequency bands listed in § 80.369(a) and (b), on all the ship-to-shore calling frequencies in the high frequency bands listed in § 80.369(d), and on at least four of the automated mutual-assistance vessel rescue (AMVER) system HF duplex channels (this requirement may be met by the addition of such frequencies to the radiotelephone installation required by paragraph (b) of this section); or
( 2 ) If operated in an area within the coverage of an INMARSAT maritime mobile geostationary satellite in which continuous alerting is available, an INMARSAT ship earth station meeting the equipment authorization rules of parts 2 and 80 of this chapter.
[68 FR 46973, Aug. 7, 2003]
`MUTUALMATERIALS' Trusted Since 1900 

Apri119, 2013 

Alex.Cristafaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

David Rostker, U.S. Small BusinessAdministration, Office of Advocacy 

Cortiney Higgins, U.S. Office. of IVlanagement and Budget 

Dear.Mr. Cristafaro, Mr. Rostker, and Ms. Higgins: 

I am writing today as the prresident of a sniall brick manufacturing company that has the potential to be 

significantly impacted by the upcoming MACT standard for major sources in the brick and structural clay 

processiag indusiry. We are a formal Small Entity Representative (SER) in the cwrent review panel 

being conducted under the Sma11 Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act (SBREFA). We are not, 

however,: a member of the Brick Industry Association (BIA). Mutual Materials Company along with all 

of our industry is working with the BIA on this critical rulemaking process. They are keeping us apprised 

of the activities on this rule, and we are continuing to provide support to their effort as needed. We 

consider them to be speaking on the whole industry's behalf; as they work with you. 

Many brick manufacturing companies, including Mutual Materials, are companies founded by individuals 

over one hundred years ago. Many of those companies, including Mutual Materials, are still held and 

operated by those same families as small industries providing quality building materials for construction 

and jobs to local community members. We appreciate the efforts of all involved with the creation of this 

standard, and understand that EPA can not technically consider cost of controls in the process of writing 

the rule. However, as a small business we must shms that the economic impact of this rule has the 

potential to force a decision that would close our brick manufaciuring facilities. To that point we have 

provided, under strict confidentiality, production and sales numbers for 2005 and 2012. Using EPA 

calculations of control cost installation and operation it is clear that our business cannot support such an 

extreme cost addition potential. 

Sincerely, 

Joseph Bowen, President 

Mutual Materials Company www.mutualmatexials.com 

PO Box 2009 

Bellevue WA 98009 

605 119th Avenue NE 

Bellevue, WA 98005 

425.452 2300 office 

425.454 7732 fax