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

SUBJECT: Comments received during public comment period of a Direct Final Rule:

Air Plan Approval: AK; Permitting Fees Revision

Proposed Rule, 81 FR 85203

[Direct Final] Rule, 81 FR 85160

FROM: Randall Ruddick, Air Quality Planner

THRU: Debra Suzuki, Air Programs Unit Manager

TO: Docket File

DATE: January 03, 2017

The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted revisions to their

permitting fees provisions on February 1, 2016. The EPA took direct final action to approve the revisions

into their State Implementation Plan (SIP) as complying with Clean Air Act (CAA) 110(a)(2)(L). [81 FR

85160]. In the accompanying proposal [81 FR 85203] EPA stated that the EPA was approving Alaska’s SIP

revision as a direct final rule (DFR) without prior proposal because we viewed it as a noncontroversial

SIP revision and anticipated no adverse comments. We further stated that if the EPA received no

adverse comments, the EPA would not take further action on this proposed rule and that the final action

would become effective in 60 days (on January 24, 2017). https://www.regulations.govfdocket?D=EPA

R10-OAR-2016-0591

The public comment period was November25 to December 27, 2016. We received two comments:

1. A letter from ADEC acknowledging our work and supporting the direct final action.

2. A third party comment on the DFR, discussion follows.

The third party commenter states, all Native American/Alaskan Native Tribes “should incorporate into

their tools and equipment an air quality monitor prior to the permitting of this revision.” The commenter

goes on to explain how air monitors could be used by villages to better inform residents of the status of

air quality control, especially those with respiratory issues. The commenter also promotes the use of

burn barrels or burn boxes to prevent open dump burning and subsequent run away fires as well as wild

land fires caused by human error or mismanagement and possible Local Tribe and state enforcement

options for addressing these concerns.

The SIP approval at hand does not in any way address air monitors, open burning, wildland fires, or air

quality more generally, but instead solely addresses permitting fees submitted pursuant to in Clean Air

Act (CM) 110(a)(2)(L). This comment is therefore not a comment adverse to EPA’s action.

The comments submitted by ADEC are supportive of EPA’s action and therefore are also not adverse

comments.

Because EPA does not consider any of the comments received during the public comment as adverse,

EPA intends to allow the DFR to take effect as originally proposed January 24, 2017 will be the effective

date.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.452 How does this subpart apply to converted pipelines and regulated onshore gathering pipelines? ( a ) *Converted pipelines.* Notwithstanding the date the pipeline was installed or any earlier deadlines for compliance, each pipeline which qualifies for use under this part in accordance with § 192.14 must meet the requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to pipelines installed before August 1, 1971, and all other applicable requirements within 1 year after the pipeline is readied for service. However, the requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to pipelines installed after July 31, 1971, apply if the pipeline substantially meets those requirements before it is readied for service or it is a segment which is replaced, relocated, or substantially altered.
( b ) *Type A and B onshore gathering lines.* For any Type A or Type B regulated onshore gathering line under § 192.9 existing on April 14, 2006, that was not previously subject to this part, and for any onshore gathering line that becomes a regulated onshore gathering line under § 192.9 after April 14, 2006, because of a change in class location or increase in dwelling density: ( 1 ) The requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to pipelines installed before August 1, 1971, apply to the gathering line regardless of the date the pipeline was actually installed; and
( 2 ) The requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to pipelines installed after July 31, 1971, apply only if the pipeline substantially meets those requirements.
( c ) *Type C onshore regulated gathering lines.* For any Type C onshore regulated gathering pipeline under § 192.9 existing on May 16, 2022, that was not previously subject to this part, and for any Type C onshore gas gathering pipeline that becomes subject to this subpart after May 16, 2022, because of an increase in MAOP, change in class location, or presence of a building intended for human occupancy or other impacted site: ( 1 ) The requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to pipelines installed before August 1, 1971, apply to the gathering line regardless of the date the pipeline was actually installed; and
( 2 ) The requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to pipelines installed after July 31, 1971, apply only if the pipeline substantially meets those requirements.
( d ) *Regulated onshore gathering lines generally.* Any gathering line that is subject to this subpart per § 192.9 at the time of construction must meet the requirements of this subpart applicable to pipelines installed after July 31, 1971.
[Amdt. 192-30, 42 FR 60148, Nov. 25, 1977, as amended by Amdt. 192-102, 71 FR 13303, Mar. 15, 2006; Amdt. 192-129, 86 FR 63298, Nov. 15, 2021]
# EUR-Lex - 52001XX1123(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52001XX1123(01)

**Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/34.493 — Duales System Deutschland (DSD) (prepared pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition procedures — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 328 , 23/11/2001 P. 0005 - 0005 *

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/34.493 - Duales System Deutschland (DSD)

(prepared pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition procedures - OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2001/C 328/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations regarding the right to be heard:

The Commission's intention to attach two obligations to the envisaged exemption of the exclusivity links that are foreseen in the service agreements between DSD and the waste collectors was communicated to DSD by letter of 13 June 2001, i.e. at a rather late stage of the proceedings. In order to give DSD enough time for preparing written comments, the Hearing Officer extended the initial two week's deadline for its response by 20 days until 18 July 2001. The draft decision deals in a detailed manner with the arguments which DSD put forward against the envisaged obligations.

From the foregoing it follows that DSD's rights of defence have been fully respected. The same is true of third parties' rights to be heard.

Done at Brussels on 23 July 2001.

Helmuth Schröter
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp Realty
Fund 3 Financial Statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         248,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,923<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,186,904
<PP&E>                                      31,516,291<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                            (20,840,641)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,138,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          676,369
<BONDS>                                     19,029,776<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   (7,567,440)<F5>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,138,705
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,885,971<F6>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,262,077<F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             423,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   200,604<F8>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F8>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F8>
<FN>
<F1>Includes all receivables grouped in "Prepaid Expenses and Other Assets" on the
Balance Sheet.
<F2>Includes apartment complexes of $30,996,707 and deferred expenses of $519,584.
<F3>Includes depreciation of $20,616,197 and amortization of deferred expenses of
$224,444.
<F4>Represents mortgage note payable.
<F5>Represents total deficit of the General Partners ($329,622) and the Limited
Partners ($7,237,818).
<F6>Includes all revenue of the Partnership.
<F7>Includes operating expenses of $711,602, real estate taxes of $139,447 and
depreciation and amortization of $411,028.
<F8>Net Income allocated $2,006 to General Partners and $198,598 to Limited
Partners.  Net income of $7.62 per unit on 25,000 units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 18, 1995 (96), Para 96.26 H. Res. 188--Unfinished Business]
[Page 1149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.96.26  h. res. 188--unfinished business

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced the unfinished business to be the question on ordering the 
previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 188) providing for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1976) making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
and for other purposes.
  The question being put,
  Will the House order the previous question on said resolution?
  The vote was taken by electronic device.

It was decided in the

Yeas

242

affirmative

Nays

185
```
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-00428-CV

IN RE BARRI LYN MCKASSON	 					   RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

									PER CURIAM

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT and LIVINGSTON, JJ.

DELIVERED:  December 178, 2009
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHILIP C. BIKLE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

A. SANTOS, Officer, in his individual

capacity; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-55077

D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

 Philip C. Bikle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a traffic citation. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060,

FILED

JUL 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1061 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Bikle’s action as frivolous because

Bikle’s claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a “frivolous” claim lacks an arguable basis either in law

or in fact; “[the] term ‘frivolous’ . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal

conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”); see also New York v. Class,

475 U.S. 106, 114, 117-18 (1986) (there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy”

in a vehicle’s VIN number under the Fourth Amendment); cf. In re Arturo D, 38

P.3d 433, 450-51 (Cal. 2002) (a police officer’s limited search of the vehicle’s

glove compartment and other areas constituted a reasonable search when the

plaintiff was unable to produce a driver’s license and registration).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Bikle’s action

without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of

review). 

We do not consider issues or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. 

See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Bikle’s requests for judicial notice, filed on August 28, 2014, are denied. 

AFFIRMED.

2 14-55077
Exhibit 32


              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 of Oak Ridge Micro-Energy, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Mark Meriwether, CEO, President, Secretary/Treasurer
and director of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Dated: 4/15/2005                         /s/Mark Meriwether
                                         -------------------------
                                         President
                                         CEO
                                         Treasurer
                                         Director
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2073 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2073

To disapprove sentencing guideline amendments relating to cocaine base 
                         and money laundering.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 1995

  Mr. Stupak (for himself and Mr. McCollum) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To disapprove sentencing guideline amendments relating to cocaine base 
                         and money laundering.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO EQUALIZATION OF CRACK 
              AND COCAINE POWDER QUANTITIES.

    In accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, 
Amendment number 5 of the ``Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, 
Policy Statements, and Official Commentary'', submitted by the United 
States Sentencing Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, is hereby 
disapproved and shall not take effect to the extent it--
            (1) amends Sec. 2D1.1(c) (1) through (14) of the sentencing 
        guidelines;
            (2) inserts the following sentence in Sec. 2D1.1(c) of the 
        sentencing guidelines: `` `Cocaine,' for the purposes of this 
        guideline, includes cocaine hydrochloride, cocaine base, and 
        crack cocaine.'';
            (3) deletes ``1 gm of Cocaine Base (`Crack') = 20 kg of 
        marihuana'' from the Commentary to Sec. 2D1.1 of the sentencing 
        guidelines captioned ``Application Notes'' in Note 10 in the 
        subdivision captioned ``Cocaine and Other Schedule I and II 
        Stimulants''; and
            (4) provides reasons for the amendment, except the reasons 
        set forth in the seventh paragraph of the discussion entitled 
        ``Reason for Amendment''.

SEC. 2. DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MONEY LAUNDERING AND 
              TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY DERIVED FROM UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.

    In accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, 
Amendment number 18 of the ``Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, 
Policy Statements, and Official Commentary'', submitted by the United 
States Sentencing Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, is hereby 
disapproved and shall not take effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gesche Koch, *Respondent,*v. Otto Meyer, *Appellant.*

*—*Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. DI ON I C I O R E YE S - P E R E Z , AK A D i on i ci o P er ez , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10205 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 1 4 2 3 - RCCH C E -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona R a ne rC . C ol l i ns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 19, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an d G R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D i on i ci o R ey es -P er ez appeal s hi s j ury c on vi ct i on and sent ence for i l l egal r e e n try a f

te rd e p o rta tio n in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . 

# FI LED MA Y17 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

R e y e s - P e r e z a r gue s tha ts t a t e m e nt s he m a de a tthe t i m e of hi s a rr e s ta nd du ri ng a m ot i on s heari ng shou l d h ave been suppress ed. E ven ass um i ng error, there w as no prej ud i ce . T he un controvert ed evi dence s ho w ed thatR ey es -P er ez w as foun d o n the roof of a w ar ehou se j ustac ross the U ni t ed S t at es -M exi co bo rder , that he had p re vi ou sl y bee n d eport ed t o h i s c ou ntryof ori gi n, M exi co, and thathe had e xpr e s s l y aba ndone d a ny c l a i m s f orr e l i e f f r om de port a t i on. T he de ni a l of the s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n d id n o t h a v e a“s u b s ta n tia l a n d in ju r io u s e f

f e c t o rin f lu e n c e in det erm i ni ng the j ury’ s ver di ct . ” G h en t v. W o o d f o rd , 27 9 F . 3d 11 21 , 11 27 (9th C i r. 2002) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . B e c aus e a nye rr orw a s ha rm l e s s , the c o n v ic tio n m u s t b e a f

f irm e d . A ts e nt e nc i ng, the c ourtde ni e d as e nt e nc i ng r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty and , i n d oi ng so, re l i ed atl ea stt o som e e xt enton the grou nd that R e y e s - P e r e z h a dp u t th e g o v e rn m e n t to its b u r d e n o f p r o o f . T h is w a s e rr o r . See U ni ted Stat es v. M

art i nez-M

art i nez , 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . F o rth is re as on , the se nt ence m ustbe re consi dere d. T he other c hal l enges t o the se nt ence a r e w ith o u t m e r it. W e AF F I RM th e c o n v ic tio n , VA C A TE the s e nt e nc e , a nd RE MAND f or the di s tr i c tc ourtt o r e c ons i de rw he the rR e y e s - P e r e z s houl d r e c e i ve as e nt e nc i ng red u ct i o n fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 126 (Monday, July 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36073-36074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3229]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Board of Directors Meeting

July 12, 2007.

Time and Date: Thursday, July 12, 2007, 10 a.m. (Open Portion) 10:15 
a.m. (Closed Portion).

Place: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Meeting Open to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Closed 
portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.)

Matters to be Considered:
    1. President's Report.
    2. Approval of April 26, 2007 Minutes (Open Portion).

Further Matters to be Considered: (Closed to the Public 10:15 a.m.)

[[Page 36074]]

    1. Report from Audit Committee.
    2. Finance and Insurance Project--The Democratic Republic of Congo.
    3. Finance Project--Costa Rica.
    4. Approval of April 26, 2007 Minutes (Closed Portion).
    7. Pending Major Projects.
    8. Reports.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.

    Dated: June 28, 2007.
Connie M. Downs,
Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
[FR Doc. 07-3229 Filed 6-28-07; 12:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
From: skay@pacbell.net [mailto:skay@pacbell.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:22 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Sandra Krauthamer 

10561 Lakeside Dr. S #E 

Garden Grove,, CA 92840