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

###### Natural Resources Conservation Services 

# AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural  Resources Conservation Service Rules (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 7 (Caldwell Lake Dam) in the West Fork Duck Creek Watershed. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry J. Cosby; State Conservationist; Natural Resources Conservation Service; 200 North High Street, Room 522, Columbus, Ohio 43215; telephone 614-255-2500. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The environmental assessment of this Federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national effects on the human environment. As a result of these findings, Terry J. Cosby, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project. 

The project purpose is flood prevention. The action includes the rehabilitation of one floodwater-retarding dam. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency; various Federal, state and local agencies; and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FNSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment is on file and may be reviewed by contacting Terry J. Cosby. 

                    No administrative action on implementation of the preferred alternative will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Terry J. Crosby, 

State Conservationist 

[FR Doc. 07-2555 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 15, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01218-CV

WALTER CARTER, JR., Appellant

V.

CITY OF GARLAND, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-01405-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Before the Court is appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellee contends the 

appeal should be dismissed because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Appellant 

did not file a response to the motion.

A notice of appeal is due thirty days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.1. If a party files a post-judgment motion extending the appellate timetable, a notice 

of appeal is due ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). 

Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b).
–2–

The trial court signed the judgment on May 3, 2013. Appellant filed a timely motion to

reinstate the case.

1

 Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due on August 1, 2013. Appellant 

filed his notice of appeal on August 30, 2013, twenty-nine days past the due date. In his notice 

of appeal, appellant states that he is appealing the order signed on August 1, 2013. The trial 

court’s August 1, 2013 order simply denied appellant’s motion to reinstate. The appellate 

timetable runs from the date the judgment is signed, not from the date an order denying a postjudgment motion is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. 

Because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

131218F.P05

 1 We recognize the trial court granted summary judgment and did not dismiss the case for want of prosecution. Thus, a motion for new trial 

would have been the more appropriate motion to file. See Howlett v. Tarrant Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. 

denied). However, under the language of rule of appellate procedure 26.1(a), the filing of a motion to reinstate that meets the requirements of 

rule 165a will extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal, even if the trial court did not dismiss the underlying case for want of prosecution. Id.; 

see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WALTER CARTER, JR., Appellant

No. 05-13-01218-CV V.

CITY OF GARLAND, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-01405-B.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. 

Justices O’Neill and Lang-Miers, 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee, CITY OF GARLAND, recover its costs of this appeal 

from appellant, WALTER CARTER, JR..

Judgment entered this 15th day of October, 2013.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
MRS. FIELDS HOLDINGS FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                         APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                                      545
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             9,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                              1,184
<INVENTORY>                                               4,564
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         16,993
<PP&E>                                                   50,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                           22,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          201,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    22,561
<BONDS>                                                 180,908
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      3
<OTHER-SE>                                               (5,182)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            201,595
<SALES>                                                  33,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         39,902
<CGS>                                                    10,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            40,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             32
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              8
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        6,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (6,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (6,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (6,334)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (1.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (1.87)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
PCD INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          20,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                       232
<INVENTORY>                                      2,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,804
<PP&E>                                           9,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,456
<SALES>                                         26,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,857
<CGS>                                           14,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,680
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
        

</TABLE>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00945

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

00945\00945_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

00945\00945_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

00945\00945_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 00945\00945_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 00945\00945_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\00945_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\00945_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\00945_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\00945_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\00945_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\00945_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\00945_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00945\Supporting Documents\00945_YO Part G Data Review Summaries.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00945\Supporting Documents\00945_YO_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00945\Supporting Documents\00945_YO_A5-3_Water Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00945\Supporting Documents\00945_YO_F5_6_2009 landfill pot map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00945\Supporting Documents\00945_YO_G4-1 Sample day flows.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.
§ 31.10-35 Permit to proceed to another port for repair—TB/ALL. ( a ) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, may issue a permit to proceed to another port for repair, Form CG-948, to a vessel if in his judgment it can be done with safety even if the certificate of inspection of the vessel has expired or is about to expire.
( b ) Such permit will only be issued upon the written application of the master, owner or agent of the vessel.
( c ) The permit will state upon its face the conditions under which it is issued and whether or not the vessel is permitted to carry freight or passengers. Passengers may not be carried if the certificate of inspection has expired.
( d ) The permit shall be carried in a manner similar to that described in § 31.05-5 for a certificate of inspection.
|   | **Exhibit 32.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

Certification

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Samuel L. Neese, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/Samuel L. Neese                                   |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| Samuel L. Neese                                      |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer |
| March 27, 2009                                       |
|                                                 |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2422 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2422

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 702 East University Avenue in Georgetown, Texas, as the ``Kyle G. 
                      West Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2009

   Mr. Carter (for himself, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Edwards of 
   Texas, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. 
 McCaul, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Olson, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Smith 
of Texas, Mr. Brady of Texas, Ms. Granger, and Mr. Gohmert) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 702 East University Avenue in Georgetown, Texas, as the ``Kyle G. 
                      West Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. KYLE G. WEST POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 702 East University Avenue in Georgetown, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Kyle G. West Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kyle G. 
West Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TRAVERSE A. SPRAGGINS FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE BAR, OR FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE THE BAR EXAMINATION.

Argued October 2, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Por the petitioner, *Eugene B. Hayne.*

Per Curiam.

The petitioner’s name was stricken from the roll of attorneys in March, 1915.

He now applies for reinstatement to the bar or for permission to take the examination for admission to the bar.

We have examined carefully the matters which have been laid before us, with the result that we conclude that such application must be denied, and it is denied accordingly.
# C_2011080EN.01002501.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/25

---

Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission

(Case T-35/11)

2011/C 80/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) and in particular to the extent that it introduces the subdivisions under Harmonized System (‘HS’) subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) and in particular to the extent that it introduces the subdivisions under Harmonized System (‘HS’) subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and

1

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law that are identical to the ones relied on by the applicant in Case T-34/11, Canon Europa v Commission.

Canon Europa

Commission

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 284, p.1

1

---
#### BENJAMIN A. MAYOR, Appellant, v. ANNIE E. MAYOR and Others, Respondents.

*Practice*— actions *for partition of land lying in different counties*— power *of the court to consolidate them, though the defendants are not the same.*

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order made at Special Term, consolidating two actions brought for the partition of land situated in different counties, there being two defendants in one action who were not parties to the other action.

The court at General Term said: “The plaintiff commenced two actions for the partition of land. The parties were the same, except that two defendants in one action had no interest in the land in the last suit. The land was in two counties. The court made an order consolidating the two actions, from which the plain*611tiff appeals. We think the consolidation was within wise discretion. The situation of the land in two counties presents no obstacle. Actions for partition and foreclosure, where the land lies in two counties, are not infrequent, and no difficulty has ever been experienced in the practice. That some of the defendants are interested in some parcels and not in all raises no impediment.

The actioti might well have been commenced by the plaintiff in the first instance against all the defendants, for the partition of all lands in which he had a common interest. He has an interest in all the land included in the consolidated action. There is, therefore, no objection for him, or which he can make available.” •

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

*Abram*Kling, for the appellant.

*JDmid*Barnett, for the defendants Coffin and Edwards, respondents.

Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., and Cullen, J., concurred.

Order consolidating actions affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 99.15
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
   (a)
    
    under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Development
Project  Cigar Lake, Mineral Reserves and Resources  and Governance  Interest of
Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31,
2010 dated February 16, 2011 for the Cigar Lake property; and(b)
    
    under the heading Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31,
2010 dated February 14, 2011 for the Cigar Lake property,
    /s/
    
    Grant J. H. GoddardName:
    
    Grant J. H. Goddard, P. Eng.Title:
    
    Vice-President of Saskatchewan Mining North, Cameco CorporationDate:
    
    February 16, 2011
§ 25.26-50 Servicing of EPIRBs. ( a ) The master of each vessel required to have an EPIRB under this subpart shall ensure that each EPIRB on board is tested and serviced as required by this section.
( b ) The EPIRB must be tested immediately after installation and at least once each month thereafter, unless it is an EPIRB installed in a Coast Guard approved inflatable liferaft that is tested annually during the servicing of the liferaft by an approved servicing facility. The test shall be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, using the visual or audio indicator on the EPIRB. If the EPIRB is not operating, it must be repaired or replaced with an operating EPIRB.
( c ) The battery of the EPIRB must be replaced— ( 1 ) Immediately after the EPIRB is used for any purpose other than being tested; and
( 2 ) Before the expiration date that is marked on the battery.
[CGD 87-016a, 58 FR 13367, Mar. 10, 1993; 58 FR 27658, May 11, 1993]
§ 35.40-30 Instructions for changing steering gear—TB/ALL. Instructions in at least 1 ⁄ 2 inch letters and figures shall be posted in the steering engineroom, relating in order, the different steps to be taken in changing to the emergency steering gear. Each clutch, gear wheel, lever, valve or switch which is used during the changeover shall be numbered or lettered on a brass plate or painted so that the markings can be recognized at a reasonable distance. The instructions shall indicate each clutch or pin to be “in” or “out” and each valve or switch which is to be “opened” or “closed” in shifting to any means of steering for which the vessel is equipped. Instructions shall be included to line up all steering wheels and rudder amidship before changing gears.