alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Maurin, Lawrence

From: BECKHAM, LISA

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:15 PM

To: Maurin, Lawrence

Subject: FW: NGS Permitting

From: Heckel Kyle C [mailto:Kyle.Heckel@srpnet.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:34 AM

To: Raju Bisht <rbisht@navajo‐nsn.gov>; Yu‐Lien Chu <Yu‐Lien.Chu@erg.com>

Cc: BECKHAM, LISA <BECKHAM.LISA@EPA.GOV>; Cenalmor Bruquetas Maria B (Barbara)

<Barbara.CenalmorBruquetas@srpnet.com>

Subject: NGS Permitting

Hi Raju and Yu‐Lien,

I spoke with Lisa Beckham with EPA Region 9 regarding the recent questions on the Navajo Generating Station (NGS)

permit applications and I wanted to fill the two of you in on our conversation.  Lisa, please correct me if I have misstated

anything.

To address the concerns that the MATS Hg control project included in the Title V renewal addendum application and the

refined coal project included in the Tribal Minor NSR application submitted to EPA were related, I explained the

differences between the two project.  The refined coal project will be owned and operated by a third‐party which will be

contracted out by SRP.  Further, SRP will not be relying on the refined coal project for complying with the MATS Hg

emission limits.  The MATS Hg control project includes equipment that will be owned and operated by SRP and will be

used to comply with the MATS Hg emission limits.  The MATS Hg control project is designed to have a capacity capable

of controlling Hg emissions absent the refined coal project.  The projects are independent from each other and would be

carried through even if the other one were not to be installed.  

Regarding the PTE calculations for the baghouses on the PAC silos, EPA is okay with the use of baghouse grain loading

rate for uncontrolled emission calculations.  However, Lisa did mention that because the installation of the PAC silos will

have an increase in potential emissions, though less than the minor NSR thresholds, the project is still subject to the

administrative permit amendment requirements of the tribal minor NSR program.

Based on the above two items, SRP will be submitting an administrative amendment application to EPA Region 9 to

authorize the MATS Hg control project.  While separate from the refined coal project proposed in the tribal minor NSR

application, EPA will likely process the two applications together.  If there are concerns with having a permit issued by

the October 1, 2015 deadline for commencing construction of the MATS Hg control equipment, EPA will separate out

the administrative amendment processing so that SRP can comply with the October 1 deadline.

I would imagine that based on this approach, NNEPA may want to exclude the MATS Hg control equipment (i.e., PAC

storage silos) from the NGS Title V permit until the NGS construction permit has been revised by EPA.  Since the

construction of the equipment will be authorized via the administrative amendment, SRP is okay if that is the desired

approach.

If there are any questions or concerns, please let me know.

Thanks,
2

Kyle

Kyle Heckel

Salt River Project

Environmental Engineer

602‐236‐5493

Mail Station PAB352 ‐ PO Box 52025 ‐ Phoenix, AZ  85072
§ 150.435 Discovery. ( a ) The parties must identify any need for discovery from the opposing party as soon as possible, but no later than the time for the reply specified in § 150.437(c). Upon request of a party, the ALJ may stay proceedings for a reasonable period pending completion of discovery if the ALJ determines that a party would not be able to make the submissions required by § 150.437 without discovery. The parties should attempt to resolve any discovery issues informally before seeking an order from the ALJ.
( b ) Discovery devices may include requests for production of documents, requests for admission, interrogatories, depositions, and stipulations. The ALJ orders interrogatories or depositions only if these are the only means to develop the record adequately on an issue that the ALJ must resolve to decide the case.
( c ) Each discovery request must be responded to within 30 days of receipt, unless that period of time is extended for good cause by the ALJ.
( d ) A party to whom a discovery request is directed may object in writing for any of the following reasons: ( 1 ) Compliance with the request is unduly burdensome or expensive.
( 2 ) Compliance with the request will unduly delay the proceedings.
( 3 ) The request seeks information that is wholly outside of any matter in dispute.
( 4 ) The request seeks privileged information. Any party asserting a claim of privilege must sufficiently describe the information or document being withheld to show that the privilege applies. If an asserted privilege applies to only part of a document, a party withholding the entire document must state why the nonprivileged part is not segregable.
( e ) Any motion to compel discovery must be filed within 10 days after receipt of objections to the party's discovery request, within 10 days after the time for response to the discovery request has elapsed if no response is received, or within 10 days after receipt of an incomplete response to the discovery request. The motion must be reasonably specific as to the information or document sought and must state its relevance to the issues in the case.
§ 2105.25 When will the Agency notify a submitter of a request for their possibly confidential information? ( a ) Except as outlined in § 2105.27, an Agency must promptly notify a submitter in writing when it receives a FOIA request if: ( 1 ) The requested information has been designated by the submitter as confidential information under § 2105.24(a); or
( 2 ) The requested information has not been designated as confidential information by the submitter under § 2105.24(a), but the Agency identifies it as possibly confidential information.
( b ) If a voluminous number of submitters are involved, the Agency may publish a notice in a manner reasonably calculated to reach the attention of the submitters (for example, in newspapers or newsletters, the Agency's website, or the Federal Register) instead of providing a written notice to each submitter.
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No . 07 - 20 - 00239 - CR

________________________ VICTOR MORENO , APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE O n Appeal from the 242 nd District Court Swisher County, Texas Trial Court No. A 4582 - 16 - 02 ; Honorable Kregg Hukill , Presiding September 15 , 20 20 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Victor Moreno, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order on Defendant’s Motion for Court Appointed Counsel . We dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 In 2016, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon 1 and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. He did not immediately appeal his conviction , but instead filed notice s of appeal in April 2018 and April 2020. We dismissed both untimely appeals for want of jurisdiction. 2 In July 2020, Appell ant filed a motion in the trial court requesting the appointment of appellate cou nsel . The t r ial court denied his motion and t his appeal followed. We have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment of conviction or where appellate jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696 - 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The denial of court - appointed counsel is n either a judgment of conviction nor an order from which an appeal is specific ally authorized by law. Cooper v. State , No. 05 - 12 - 01738 - CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2089, at * 2 (Tex. App. — Dallas Mar . 1, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) . Because the order denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is not an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction . Per Curiam Do not publish.

1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2019 ). The judgment reflects the offense to be a first degree felony. 2 See Moreno v. State , Nos. 07 - 18 - 00123 - CR, 07 - 18 - 00124 - CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2948, at *2 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Apr. 25, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Moreno v. State , No. 07 - 20 - 00136 - CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 5118, at *1 (Tex. App. — Amarillo July 10, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We also advised Appellant in both opinions that he could seek an out - of - time appeal by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
#### § 1803.8 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the Foundation shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1613 GREGORY G. ARMENTO, d/b/a Tradewind Marketing and Design, formerly known as Cumulus Creative Communications, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCITY OF ASHEVILLE; ASHEVILLE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE; LESLIE ANDERSON, Director, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-94-58-1) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory G. Armento, Appellant Pro Se. John Henderson Hasty, GeorgeBryan Adams, III, WAGGONER, HAMRICK, HASTY, MONTEITH & KRATT, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment for Defendant in his action alleging a copyrightviolation and unfair and deceptive trade practices. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Armento v. City of Asheville , No. CA-94-58-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 2400.52 Amount of stipend.

Junior and Senior Fellowships carry a stipend of up to a maximum of $24,000 pro-rated over the period of Fellows' graduate study. In no case shall the stipend for a fellowship exceed $12,000 per academic year. Within this limit, stipends will be pro-rated over the period of Fellows' graduate study as follows: a maximum of $6,000 per academic semester or trimester of full-time study, and a maximum of $4,000 per academic quarter of full-time study. Stipends for part-time study will be pro rata shares of those allowable for full-time study.
§ 160.104 Modifications. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may adopt a modification to a standard or implementation specification adopted under this subchapter no more frequently than once every 12 months.
( b ) The Secretary may adopt a modification at any time during the first year after the standard or implementation specification is initially adopted, if the Secretary determines that the modification is necessary to permit compliance with the standard or implementation specification.
( c ) The Secretary will establish the compliance date for any standard or implementation specification modified under this section. ( 1 ) The compliance date for a modification is no earlier than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule in which the Secretary adopts the modification.
( 2 ) The Secretary may consider the extent of the modification and the time needed to comply with the modification in determining the compliance date for the modification.
( 3 ) The Secretary may extend the compliance date for small health plans, as the Secretary determines is appropriate.
[65 FR 82798, Dec. 28, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 38019, May 31, 2002]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1522 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1522

To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2009

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``United States Cadet Nurse Corps 
Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. SERVICE DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 401(a)(1)(A) of the GI 
Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 note), the Secretary of 
Defense is deemed to have determined that qualified service of a person 
constituted active military service.
    (b) Determination of Discharge Status.--The Secretary of Defense 
shall issue an honorable discharge under section 401(a)(1)(B) of the GI 
Bill Improvement Act of 1977 to each person whose qualified service 
warrants an honorable discharge. Such discharge shall be issued before 
the end of the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.

    No benefits may be paid to any person as a result of the enactment 
of this Act for any period before the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``qualified service'' means 
service of a person as a member of the organization known as the United 
States Cadet Nurse Corps during the period beginning on July 1, 1943, 
and ending on December 15, 1945.
                                 <all>
```
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 31, 2006, 8 a.m. to November 1, 2006, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 16, 2006, 71 FR 60744-60746.                

The meeting will be held October 31, 2006, 7 a.m. to November 2, 2006, 7 a.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 18, 2006.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-8879 Filed 10-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 40


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

l0901 

# Order

September 11, 2009

137049

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137049 COA: 285902 Wayne CC: 06-003474 HOWARD JAMAL SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the ap plication for leave to appeal the July 9, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, purs uant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether
the defendant should be awarded jail credit and, if the court finds that he is entitled to such credit, to apply the credit to the sentence in this case. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented
should be reviewed by this Court.
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 96 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education 

relating to ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2024 

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH (for herself, Mr. CASSIDY, Ms. LUMMIS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mrs. BRITT, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LEE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COTTON, 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. BUDD, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. 

WICKER, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. DAINES, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 

RUBIO, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. 

LANKFORD, and Mr. VANCE) introduced the following joint resolution; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Education relating to ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 96 IS 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De2 partment of Education relating to ‘‘Nondiscrimination on 

3 the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Re4 ceiving Federal Financial Assistance’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 

5 33474 (April 29, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force 

6 or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Green v. Eden, appellant.

*Landlord and tenant—covenant to repair*— *what repaws a/re.*

In a lease the lessee covenanted to kee^p the leased building in good repair and condition. At the time he took possession the roof and steps were in bad condition. The lessee made such repairs only as were required for his own comfort, and the steps became rotten and the roof leaked so as to injure the walls. After the lessee’s term expired the lessor had the roof shingled, gutter repaired and new steps -made. *Reid,*that these were repairs within the covenant of the lease, and that the lessee was liable for the expense of making them.' '

Appeal from a judgment of the Kings - county court, entered upon the verdict of a jury in an action originating in a justices’ court. The facts appear in the opinion.

' *H. 0. Place,*for appellant.

*W. J. Dainty*and *D. P. Barnard,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

The facts in this case are not disputed. The plaintiff leased to the defendant her premises for the term of three years, at a specified rent in money; the defendant also covenanting, “ as and for a further rent, to keep the whole of said house and premises in good repair and condition during the said demised term.” The roof was in bad condition when the’defendant entered into possession under the lease, as also were the steps to the house. The defendant made such repairs as were needed for “ our own comfort.” The roof leaked during the term and injured the walls and building. The plaintiffj 'after the termination of the lease, par*583tially shingled the roof and replaced the gutter, and made new steps to the house. The cost was $102.80. The county judge ordered a verdict for this sum.

As there was no question of fact, the only question arising upon this appeal is one of law. Was the work done to the roof, gutter ‘ and steps a repair ? We think clearly it was. The covenant to keep the house in good repair and condition was not performed by leaving a leaky roof to the house, so that the rain penetrated the building and injured it and its contents; nor by leaving a rotten gutter which would not do its work; nor by leaving steps so rotten as not to be safe to use.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

*Judgment affirmed,.*
#### § 1302.1 Overview.

This part implements the statutory requirements in sections 641A, 645, 645A, and 648A of the Act by describing all of the program performance standards that are required to operate Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start, American Indian and Alaska Native and Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. This part covers the full range of operations from enrolling eligible children and providing program services to those children and their families, to managing programs to ensure staff are qualified and supported to effectively provide services. This part also focuses on using data through ongoing program improvement to ensure high-quality service. As required in the Act, the provisions in this part do not narrow the scope or quality of services covered in previous regulations. Instead, the regulations in this part raise the quality standard to reflect science and best practices, and streamline and simplify requirements so programs can better understand what is required for quality services.

[89 FR 67806, Aug. 21, 2024]
# cc: Lanalsikov Lowe Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

# 2 (0) 1947A • ■ 

# v,_ ET