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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Atlanta Airports District Office on March 27, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for proposed construction of a replacement airport at St. Marys, Georgia. Copies of the FONSI are available for review by the public for thirty (30) days at the following location: Federal Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Scott Seritt,

Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office.

[FR Doc. 07-2209 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
P.1 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

74) 11-1-4 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/2008 1:21:24 PM Sheet 74 of 145 
NOx EMISSIONS FROM PETROLEUM 

INDUSTRY OPERATIONS 

P.2 

A-90-19 

II-I-4 

L 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

API PUBLICATION 4 311 

Prepared for: 

THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

By: 

S. C. HUNTER 

S. S. CHERRY 

KVB 

A Research-Cottrell Company 

OCTOBER 1979 
P.3 

TABLE 4-13. ENERGY CONSUMED BY DEVICE TYPE 

FOR SURVEYED REFINERIES 

Device 

CO Boilers 

Process Heaters 

Natural Draft 

Mechanical Draft 

Engines 

ICE 

Gas Turbine 

Combined Cycles 

Steam Boilers 

Composite for AQCR's 30, 43, 67, 106, and 216. 

% of Total 

5. 

61. 

V 

4. 

6 

22. 

3 

7 

53.5 

8.2 

4 

0.7 

3.7 

3 

2 

V 

TABLE 4-14. ENERGY CONSUMED BY FUEL TYPE 

FOR SURVEYED REFINERIES 

Fuel 

CO Gas 

Natural Gas 

Refinery Gas 

Distillate Oil 

Residual Oil 

Composite for AQCR's 30, 43, 67, 106, and 216. 

% of 

2. 

2E 

62 

0 

5. 

100 

Total 

5 

7 

.9 

.7 

2 

.0 

83
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1411 KA 13-02152** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHERRELL L. MOORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered November 18, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), defendant contends that her concededly valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass her challenge to the severity of the sentence because County Court failed to abide by the sentencing provisions of the plea agreement. The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court did not comply with the sentencing provisions of the plea agreement. During the plea colloquy, the court promised to impose a determinate sentence between 5 and 15 years should defendant comply with certain conditions of the plea, including cooperating in the prosecution of the codefendants. Defendant fulfilled the conditions, and the court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of incarceration of 91⁄2 years. We thus conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the bargained-for sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256; see generally People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
FILED: July 5, 2023

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2390 (L)

(6:20-cv-00031-NKM-RSB)

EVA PALMER,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC.,

 Defendant – Appellee.

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

AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,

 Amicus Supporting Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY; BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY; THE 

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA; HOUSTON BAPTIST 

UNIVERSITY,

 Amici Supporting Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed June 30, 2023, as follows:

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2390 Doc: 78 Filed: 07/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

On page 7, in the final sentence of the first paragraph, the citation to “Id. at 

1134” is corrected to “See J.A. 1134.” 

On page 20, in the first sentence of footnote 5, the references to “ADEA 

Ruling” are corrected to “Statutory Ruling.” 

On page 21, in the first sentence of footnote 6, the reference to “ADEA 

Ruling” is corrected to “Statutory Ruling.” 

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2390 Doc: 78 Filed: 07/05/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 28.70 Approved equipment and material. ( a ) Equipment and material that is required by this subchapter to be approved or of an approved type, must have been manufactured and approved in accordance with the design and testing requirements in subchapter Q of this chapter or as otherwise specified by the Commandant.
( b ) A listing of current and formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the internet at: *http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment .* Each OCMI may be contacted for information concerning approved equipment.
[CGD 88-079, 56 FR 40393, Aug. 14, 1991, as amended by USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58344, Sept. 30, 2004]
-dep 

west virginia department of environmental protection 

Division of Air Quality 

60 I 57"' Street SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Phone 304/926-0475 • FAX: 304/926-0479 

Ms. Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

USEP A Region III 

1650 Arch Street (3APOO) 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear Ms. Esher: 

Junel0, 2011 

Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor 

Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secreta!)' 

www.dep.wv.gov 

RE: Proposed Air Quality Rules for 20 12 Legislative Session 

Enclosed is a notice of public comment period and public hearings, and a copy of ten (1 0) 

proposed air quality rules: 45CSR8, 45CSR14, 45CSR16, 45CSR18, 45CSR19, 45CSR25, 

45CSR30, 45CSR34, 45CSR35 and 45CSR42 for the West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality (DAQ). Once these rules have been authorized and promulgated 

by the West Virginia Legislature, the DAQ is proposing to adopt them in the Spring of2012. 

Please note the DAQ will accept written comments on the proposed rules up to and including 

July 11 , 20 11. In addition, the agency will receive oral comments at a public hearing to be held on 

July 11 ,2011 , beginning at 6:00p.m. 

The attached public notice describes which rules the agency is proposing and what action the 

DAQ intends to request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency upon the authorization and 

promulgation of the rules in the Spring of 2012. 

Please submit any written comments to my attention at the above address, or feel free to call me 

with any questions regarding this matter at (304) 926-0462. 

JAB/jlm 

Enclosures 

Director 

Promoting a healthy environment.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*John H. Myers, *Respondent, v.*Frederick Storm, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH DUNBAR,

 Plaintiff,

 

v. Case No. 2:15-cv-11573

 Hon. Denise Page Hood

DANIEL HEYNS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING LETTER REQUEST TO TRANSFER [Dkt. 24]

AND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [Dkt. 28] 

This action was dismissed without prejudice by order dated October 8, 2015,

for Plaintiff’s failure to correct filing deficiencies. [Dkt. 18]. In this order the Court

explained that the time for correcting the filing deficiency had passed, and that if

Plaintiff wished to pursue his claims he was required to re-file his complaint in

compliance with the Court’s filing requirements. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

was denied on December 21, 2015. [Dkt. 23].

Plaintiff has now filed a letter with the Court, which will be construed as a 

post-judgment motion, seeking an order transferring him to a federal facility because

Defendants continue to violate his constitutional rights. The Court again reminds

Plaintiff that this case is closed. His present motion does not assert any grounds for

reconsideration.

Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis / Without

2:15-cv-11573-DPH-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 278
Prepaying Fees or Costs on Appeal. A court may grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis if it finds that an appeal is being taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); See Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 2d 750, 764-65 (E.D.

Mich. 2002). “Good faith” requires a showing that the issues raised are not frivolous;

it does not require a showing of probable success on the merits. Foster, 208 F. Supp.

2d at 765. Here, Plaintiff failed to correct the filing deficiencies and the case was

dismissed without prejudice. The Court finds any appeal from the Court’s order is not

made in good faith and is frivolous.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for transfer [Dkt. No. 24] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis without prepaying fees or costs on appeal [Dkt. No. 28] is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: March 24, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on March 24, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-11573-DPH-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 279
# C_2013108EN.01002502.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/25

---

Order of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Marucccio v Commission

(Case T-85/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Serious illness - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Commission decision refusing to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the appellant at the rate of 100 % - Obligation to state reasons - Article 72 of the Staff Regulations - Criteria adopted by the medical council - Opinion of the medical officer produced during the proceedings - Competence of the head of the settlements office - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 108/66

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 in Case F-65/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

1

---
§ 28.875 Radar, depth sounding, and auto-pilot. ( a ) Each vessel must be fitted with a general marine radar system for surface navigation with a radar screen mounted at the operating station, and facilities on the bridge for plotting radar readings.
( b ) Each vessel must be fitted with a suitable echo depth sounding device.
( c ) Except as provided in 33 CFR § 164.15, when the automatic pilot is used in areas of high traffic density, conditions of restricted visibility, and all other hazardous navigational situations, the master or person in charge shall ensure that: ( 1 ) It is possible to immediately establish manual control of the unit's steering:
( 2 ) A competent person is ready at all times to take over steering control; and
( 3 ) The changeover from automatic to manual steering and vice versa is made by, or under the supervision of, the officer of the watch.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE JOHNSON,

Petitioner, Case No. 14-14319

v. HON. AVERN COHN

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Doc. 16)

I.

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the Court is Petitioner’s

motion for immediate release, in which he seeks an order releasing him on bond

pending resolution of his petition. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

II.

To receive bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas corpus petition, a

petitioner must show a substantial claim of law based on the facts surrounding the

petition and the existence of “some circumstance making the [motion for bond]

exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Dotson v.

Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990). “There will be few occasions where a prisoner

will meet this standard.” Dotson, 900 F.2d at 79. Petitioner’s motion fails to establish

the existence of any extraordinary and exceptional circumstances which merit release

on bond.

2:14-cv-14319-AC-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 491
III.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for immediate release is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 7, 2016

Detroit, Michigan

2

2:14-cv-14319-AC-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 492
§ 189.25-30 Electrical engineering equipment. ( a ) For inspection procedures of Electrical Engineering equipment and systems, see Subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter.
# C_2012303EN.01000702.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/7

---

Order of the Court of 4 July 2012 — Gino Trevisanato v European Commission

(Case C-25/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Application seeking an order that the Commission take a position concerning the interpretation and the transposition of a directive - Manifest inadmissibility)

2012/C 303/14

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Gino Trevisanato (represented by L. Sulfaro, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Trevisanato v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action seeking an order that the Commission take a position on the complaint lodged by the applicant — Failure by the Commission to adopt a binding opinion on the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Conditions for application of Article 111 of the Rules and Procedures of the General Court

Trevisanato

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Trevisanato is ordered to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Trevisanato is ordered to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
# C_2014039EN.01000701.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Dixons Retail plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-494/12) (1)

1

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax - Supply of goods - Concept - Fraudulent use of a bank card)

2014/C 39/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dixons Retail plc

Appellant:

Respondents: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Articles 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of ‘supply of goods’ — Supply following a purchase made by means of the unauthorised and fraudulent use of a credit card

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Articles 2(1)(a), 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the physical transfer of goods to a purchaser who fraudulently uses a bank card as a means of payment constitutes a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 77/388 and Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 and that, in the context of such a transfer, the payment made by a third party, under an agreement concluded between it and the supplier of those goods by which the third party has undertaken to pay the supplier for the goods sold by the latter to purchasers using such a card as a means of payment, constitutes ‘consideration’ within the meaning of Article 11A(1)(a) of Directive 77/388 and Article 73 of Directive 2006/112.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
#### § 32.57-5 Definitions—TB/ALL.

(a) *Standard fire test.* A “standard fire test” is one which develops in the test furnace a series of time temperature relationships as follows:

| | 5 minutes—1,000 °F. | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 10 minutes—1,300 °F. | |
| | 30 minutes—1,550 °F. | |
| | 60 minutes—1,700 °F. | |

(b) *“A” Class divisions.* “A” Class divisions such as bulkheads and decks, means divisions that are composed of steel or an equivalent metal, suitably stiffened, and made intact with the main structure of the vessel, including the shell, structural bulkheads, or decks. They are constructed so that, if subjected to the standard fire test, they are capable of preventing the passage of flame and smoke for one hour. In addition, they are insulated with approved structural insulation, bulkhead panels, or deck coverings so that the average temperature on the unexposed side does not rise more than 139 °C (250 °F) above the original temperature, nor does the temperature at any one point, including any joint, rise more than 181 °C (325 °F) above the original temperature, within the time listed below:

| Class A-60 | 60 minutes |
| --- | --- |
| Class A-30 | 30 minutes |
| Class A-15 | 15 minutes |
| Class A-0 | 0 minutes with no insulation requirement |

(c) *“B” Class bulkheads.* Bulkheads of the “B” Class shall be constructed with approved incombustible materials and made intact from deck to deck and to shell or other boundaries. They shall be so constructed that, if subjected to the standard fire test, they would be capable of preventing the passage of flame for one-half hour.

(d) *“C” Class divisions.* Bulkheads or decks of the “C” Class shall be constructed of approved incombustible materials, but need meet no requirements relative to the passage of flame.

(e) *Steel.* Where the term “steel or other equivalent metal” is used in this subpart, it is intended to require a material which, by itself or due to insulation provided, has structural and integrity qualities equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable fire exposure.

(f) *Approved material.* Where in this subpart approved materials are required, they refer to materials approved under the applicable subparts of subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter, as follows:

| Deck Coverings | 164.006 |
| --- | --- |
| Structural Insulations | 164.007 |
| Bulkhead Panels | 164.008 |
| Incombustible Materials | 164.009 |
| Interior Finishes | 164.012 |

(g) *Stairtower.* A stairtower is a stairway which penetrates more than a single deck within the same enclosure.

[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16671, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 67-90, 33 FR 1015, Jan. 26, 1968; CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3845, Jan. 26, 1976; CGD 75-032, 41 FR 17910, Apr. 29, 1976]
#### § 201.109 Discovery and production of documents.

Upon request of any party showing good cause therefor, at the prehearing conference or otherwise upon notice to all other parties, the Administration or presiding officer may direct any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged which constitute or contain evidence relating to any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding, and which are in his possession, custody or control. The order shall specify the time, place, and manner of making the inspection and taking the copies and photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just. In lieu of such inspections the material may be produced in exhibit form and served upon all parties to a formal proceeding. Such exhibits may also, upon request of any party, be offered in evidence at a hearing.
§ 327.21 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this subpart: ( a ) *Accrual date.* The day on which the alleged wrongful act or omission results in injury or damage for which a claim is made.
( b ) *Claim.* A written notification of an incident, signed by the claimant, describing the incident and explaining why the United States is liable. The claim shall be accompanied by a demand for the payment of a sum certain of money, with a statement as to how that sum certain was calculated and all documents supporting the amount claimed. Where damages for medical injuries are made, the doctor's statement relating the injuries to the accident should be attached as well as medical release forms for each treating physician, hospital, and medical care provider.