alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 15
Case 16-29197 Doc 1 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 14:35:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 15
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. NYRON JOEL NICHOLS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00006-gec-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nyron Joel Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM Nyron Joel Nichols appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of the record and his motion to produce a copy of the court reporter's original sound recordings of the proceedings. We have independently reviewed

the record and find that Nichols is not entitled to the relief he requests. Accordingly, we deny Nichols’ motion for stay pending appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Nichols , No. 7:07-cr-00006-gec-1 (W.D. Va. July 14, 2009). 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
Order entered March 6 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01247 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF R .M.R., III, A MINOR CHILD On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219 - 00 287 - 2015



### O RDER W e GRANT appellant’s March 3, 2015 unopposed second motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than March 23, 2015

. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ CRAIG STODDA RT JUSTICE
Case 16-29877 Doc 6 Filed 09/20/16 Entered 09/20/16 11:36:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-29877 Doc 6 Filed 09/20/16 Entered 09/20/16 11:36:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
#### JOHN N. BAXTER v. VILLAGE OF RUTLAND.

May Term, 1895.

*Condemnation of water rights. Fact that water power not utilized immaterial. Error must appear.*

1. The fact that a water power has never been utilized does not prevent the riparian owner from recovering compensation for damages to the same when the water is taken for municipal purposes.

2. Where there is nothing upon the record to show that the commissioners and county court in fixing the amount of damages did not adopt the correct rule, the judgment will be affirmed.

Petition for the appointment of commissioners to asse.ss the damages of the petitioner occasioned by the taking by the petitionee of the waters of East Creek. Heard upon the report of commissioners at the September term, 1894, Rutland county, Start, J., presiding. Judgment for the petitioner for the amount named in the petition. The petitionee excepts.

*C. L. Howe*for.the petitionee.

*Geo. E. Lawrence*and *F. D. White*for the petitioner.

The petitioner is entitled to recover damages in view of any use to which his water rights could be legitimately put, whether they have been actually used for that purpose or not. *Leonard*v. *Rutland,*66 Vt. 105 ; Lewis, Eminent Domain, *608sec. 61 *et seq-, Bailey*v. *Woburn,*126 Mass. 416; *Parker*v. *Griswold,*17 Conn.

THOMPSON, J.

The defendant, the Village of Rutland, condemned and took certain water flowing through the petitioner’s land, to supply it with water. This proceeding is to recover such damages as accrued to him as a riparian owner, by reason of such taking. There are two available water privileges on his land which were affected and rendered less valuable by the taking of the water by the defendant. They have never been utilized, but this fact does not preclude the petitioner from recovering the damages thereto, resulting from such taking. They then were available for use, if the owner had seen fit to use them. He is entitled to recover of the defendant such a sum as will compensate him for the loss of the water for all available uses to which he, as riparian owner, legitimately might have put it at the time of the taking. *Hooker*v. *Montpelier & White River R. R. Co.,*62 Vt. 47; *Leonard*v. Rutland, 66 Vt. 105; *Bailey*v. *Woburn,*127 Mass. 416. The defendant in his argument concedes this to be the correct measure of damages, but contends that the commissioners must have assessed the damages upon some other theory. This does not appear from their report. The record does not show that the defendant filed exceptions to their report, nor does it appear that this question was raised in the court below, and consequently it is not before this court. The contrary not appearing, it is to be presumed that the commissioners and the court below adopted and applied the correct rule in respect to damages.

*Judgment affirmed with interest and costs to petitioner.*
§ 1211.610 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) *Periodic compliance reviews.* The designated agency official (or designee) shall from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations may by himself or herself or by a representative file with the designated agency official (or designee) a written complaint. A complaint must be filed not later than 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the designated agency official (or designee).
( c ) *Investigations.* The designated agency official (or designee) will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with these Title IX regulations. The investigation should include, where appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with these Title IX regulations occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with these Title IX regulations.
( d ) *Resolution of matters.* ( 1 ) If an investigation pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section indicates a failure to comply with these Title IX regulations, the designated agency official (or designee) will so inform the recipient and the matter will be resolved by informal means whenever possible. If it has been determined that the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, action will be taken as provided for in § 1211.615.
( 2 ) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d) (1) of this section the designated agency official (or designee) will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
( e ) *Intimidatory or retaliatory acts prohibited.* No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by Title IX or these Title IX regulations, or because he or she has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under these Title IX regulations. The identity of complainants shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of these Title IX regulations, including the conduct of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising under these Title IX regulations.
[65 FR 52887, Aug. 30, 2000]
§ 1010.13 Trust decision-making procedures. To ensure that at major decision-making points all relevant environmental concerns are considered by the decision-maker, the following procedures are established. ( a ) An environmental document (*i.e.,* the EA, finding of no significant impact, EIS, or notice of intent), in addition to being prepared at the earliest point in the decision-making process, shall accompany the relevant proposal or action through the Trust's decision-making process to ensure adequate consideration of environmental factors.
( b ) The Trust shall consider in its decision-making process only decision alternatives encompassed by the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents. Also, where an EIS has been prepared, the Trust shall consider all alternatives described in the EIS, a written record of the consideration of alternatives during the decision-making process shall be maintained, and a monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation.
( c ) Any environmental document prepared for a proposal or action shall be made part of the record of any formal rulemaking by the Trust.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 06-55]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 06-55 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: September 22, 2006.

C.R. Choate,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 56493)          ( print page 56494)          ( print page 56495)          ( print page 56496)          ( print page 56497)          ( print page 56498)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 06-8318 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Editorial Note on Part 648
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

§ 648.233 Spiny dogfish Accountability Measures (AMs). ( a ) *Commercial EEZ closure.* The Regional Administrator shall determine the date by which the annual coastwide quota described in § 648.232 will be harvested and shall close the EEZ to fishing for spiny dogfish on that date for the remainder of the fishing year by publishing notification in the Federal Register. Upon the closure date, and for the remainder of the fishing year, no vessel may fish for or possess spiny dogfish in the EEZ, nor may vessels issued a spiny dogfish permit under this part land spiny dogfish, nor may dealers issued a Federal permit purchase spiny dogfish from vessels issued a spiny dogfish permit under this part.
( b ) *ACL overage evaluation.* The ACL will be evaluated based on a single-year examination of total catch (including both landings and dead discards) to determine if the ACL has been exceeded.
( c ) *Overage repayment.* In the event that the ACL has been exceeded in a given fishing year, the exact amount in pounds by which the ACL was exceeded shall be deducted, as soon as possible from a subsequent single fishing year ACL.
[76 FR 60643, Sept. 29, 2011, as amended at 79 FR 41144, July 15, 2014]
§ 1250.32 How may I request assistance with the FOIA process? ( a ) For assistance at any point in the FOIA process, you may contact the NARA FOIA Public Liaison. That individual is responsible for assisting you to reduce delays, increase transparency and understanding of the status of requests, and resolve any FOIA disputes. You can find a list of our FOIA Public Liaisons at *http://www.archives.gov/foia/contacts.html .*
( b ) The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), part of NARA, serves as the Federal FOIA Ombudsman and assists requesters and agencies to prevent and resolve FOIA disputes. OGIS also reviews agencies' FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance. You may contact OGIS using the information provided below in 36 CFR 1250.74(c).
[79 FR 56504, Sept. 22, 2014, as amended at 82 FR 8902, Feb. 1, 2017]
# EUR-Lex - 12006E208 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E208

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE I - Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1 - The institutions - Section 2 - The Council - Article 208 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0138 - 0138 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0119 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0266 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0058 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 208

The Council may request the Commission to undertake any studies the Council considers desirable for the attainment of the common objectives, and to submit to it any appropriate proposals.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 90.607 Supplemental information to be furnished by applicants for facilities under this subpart. ( a ) Except for applicants for SMR licenses, all applicants for conventional radio systems must: ( 1 ) List all radio systems licensed to them or proposed by them within 64 km (40 mi.) from the location of the base station transmitter site of the facility for which they have applied.
( 2 ) Specify the number of mobile units to be placed in operation upon grant of the authorization and the number of such units that will be placed in operation within 8 months of the date of grant.
( b ) Except for applicants for SMR licenses, all applicants for trunked systems must: ( 1 ) List all radio systems licensed to them within 64 km (40 mi.) from the location of the base station transmitter site of the facility for which they have applied;
( 2 ) Specify the number of vehicular and portable mobile units and control stations to be placed in operation within the term of the license.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) All applicants for frequencies governed by this subpart are subject to the frequency coordination requirements of § 90.175(b) except applicants requesting frequencies for EA-based SMR operations in the 806-824 MHz/851-869 MHz band or 896-901 MHz/935-940 MHz band.
[47 FR 41032, Sept. 16, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 36377, Sept. 17, 1984; 51 FR 14999, Apr. 22, 1986; 59 FR 59966, Nov. 21, 1994; 63 FR 68967, Dec. 14, 1998; 69 FR 67838, Nov. 22, 2004; 70 FR 61061, Oct. 20, 2005]
# EUR-Lex - 12006E221 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E221

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE I - Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1 - The institutions - Section 4 - The Court of Justice - Article 221 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0142 - 0142 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0122 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0269 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0060 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 221

The Court of Justice shall consist of one judge per Member State.

The Court of Justice shall sit in chambers or in a Grand Chamber, in accordance with the rules laid down for that purpose in the Statute of the Court of Justice.

When provided for in the Statute, the Court of Justice may also sit as a full Court.

--------------------------------------------------
Jump to main content.

Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) 

    - You are here:  EPA Home

----

# MAIA 1997-98 Summary Report

The      		MAIA Estuaries Report is currently available in PDF format. Due to the      		large file size, a separate file may be downloaded for each section    		 of the report. 

*Note:  PDF files require the use of the free Adobe      		Acrobat Reader. *

    -  Cover  (2 pp, 668K, About PDF)
    -  Chapter 1: Executive Summary  - includes Notice, Abstract, Table of Contents, Figures, Tables, Acknowledgements  (11 pp, 60K, About PDF)  
    - Chapter 2-3: 	 		Introduction, Methodology  (12 pp, 629K, About PDF)  
    - Chapter 4: Eutrophication  (24 pp, 1.8MB, About PDF)
    - Chapter 5: Sediment Contamination  (12 pp, 1.1MB, About PDF)
    - Chapter 6: Condition of Living Resources  (9 pp, 514K, About PDF)
    - Chapter 7: Summary of Conditions  (4 pp, 321K, About PDF)
    - Appendix A: Sample Site Selection Design  		 for MAIA Estuaries 1997-98  (8 pp, 274K, About PDF)
    - Appendix B: Methods and Indicators for 	 		MAIA Estuaries 1997-98; Appendix C: Criteria for Presenting Indicator  		 Data  (8 pp, 62K, About PDF)
    - Appendix D: Values of Indicator Parameters  (6 pp, 764K, About PDF)
    - Appendix E: Tabulation of Condition Estimates  (4 pp, 1.5MB, About PDF)
    - Appendix F: Statistical Correlation Coefficients  		 Among Selected Indicators  (4 pp, 1.1MB, About PDF)
    - Appendix G: Values of Condition Estimates  		 in Common MAIA and EMAP Indicators  (2 pp, 809K, About PDF)
    - Appendix H: Index of Environmental Integrity  		 for MAIA Estuaries 1997  (6 pp, 1MB, About PDF)
    - Appendix I: Recommendations for Monitoring  		 Program Design for Mid-Atlantic Estuaries  (4 pp, 446K, About PDF)
    - Appendix J: MAIA Estuaries Partners  (2 pp, 362K, About PDF)
    - References  (5 pp, 32K, About PDF)
    - Back Cover  (1 pg, 27K, About PDF)

MAIA Home | Research | Data | Documents

----

### Local Navigation

    - MAIA Home
    - Research
    - Data
    - Documents  EMAP Home        - EPA Home
- Privacy and Security Notice
    Jump to main content.
#### § 13.980 Other FDA closures and restrictions.

The Superintendent may prohibit or otherwise restrict activities in the FDA to protect public health, safety, or park resources. Information on FDA closures and restrictions will be available for inspection at the park visitor center and on the park Web site. Violating FDA closures or restrictions is prohibited.
Served: August 2, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 1st day of August, 2012

NOTICE

The Department issued Order 2012-7-4 (July 5, 2012) requesting proposals from carriers 

interested in providing Essential Air Service (EAS) at Cape Yakataga and Icy Bay, Alaska. The 

Order established August 7, 2012 as the due date for proposals. Recently, the Department has 

had informal conversations with the State of Alaska and the owner of the air field in Icy Bay. At 

this time, the status of Icy Bay as an eligible EAS community is unclear. Therefore, we are 

extending the filing deadline by three weeks to August 28, 2012. We will provide more guidance 

as to the situation in that timeframe.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available

on the World Wide Web at http://www.regualtions.gov

Essential Air Service at

CAPE YAKATAGA, ALASKA

ICY BAY, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. §41731 et seq.

DOCKET DOT-OST-1996-2009
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Anoka Air, Inc., et al 

Complainant, 

v. FAA Docket No. 16-11-12 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to November 30, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

in C. Willis 

D rector, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

I Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 14, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group 

13 Atlanta 

Irvine, CA 92620 

Facsimile: (714) 707-4282 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Thomas W. Anderson, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

6040 28th A venue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Facsimile: (612) 726-5306 

Pablo 0. NUesch, Esq. 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1 875 Eye Street, NW- Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

Facsimile: (202) 393-2866 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, A CO-l 00 

~~tk_ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis