alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22365]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Proposed Land Use Changes to Surplus 
Property at the Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport, Jacksonville, 
FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request 
from the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA) to change 79.23 acres of 
airport property from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use for 
commercial development at Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport in 
Jacksonville, Florida. The surplus property land is no longer required 
for aviation use. The land has been designated for non-aeronatucal use 
on the Airport Layout Plan. JAA will enter into a land lease agreement 
with a commercial developer, which will generate non-aeronautical 
revenue to be used for the operation and maintenance of the airport.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the FAA Orlando 
Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 
32819. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or 
mailed to: Ryan Allen, Community Planner, Orlando Airports District 
Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Allen, Community Planner, Orlando 
Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 
32819, or by telephone at (407) 487-7086.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a Sponsor's Federal obligation to 
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

Bartholomew Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-22365 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 214 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 214

 Commending the Grand Forks Herald for its public service to the Grand 
              Forks area and receipt of a Pulitzer Prize.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 22, 1998

 Mr. Conrad (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
Hagel, and Mr. Moynihan) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Commending the Grand Forks Herald for its public service to the Grand 
              Forks area and receipt of a Pulitzer Prize.

Whereas the residents of the Grand Forks area in North Dakota and Minnesota 
        experienced the most devastating floods in 500 years during April 1997;
Whereas more than 50,000 residents of the Red River Valley area were severely 
        displaced for months by the flooding;
Whereas the offices of the Grand Forks Herald, whose newspaper has a daily 
        circulation of 37,000, were displaced by the floods and moved to various 
        locations to publish the newspaper, including the University of North 
        Dakota and Manvel Elementary School, and the paper was printed by the 
        St. Paul Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota, to enable the paper to 
        maintain continuous publication;
Whereas the Grand Forks Herald publisher Mike Maidenberg, editor Mike Jacobs, 
        and more than 70 staff members, whose lives were turned upside down by 
        the floods, never failed to publish an edition of the newspaper during 
        the floods, sometimes hitting a circulation of 117,000 and keeping the 
        community together even though the paper's facilities were totally 
        destroyed;
Whereas the Grand Forks Herald was honored with journalism's most prestigious 
        award, the Pulitzer Prize for public service, for its extraordinary 
        efforts to continue publishing during the severe flooding; and
Whereas the dedication and devotion of the Grand Forks Herald to the community 
        made an extraordinary difference in the lives of many people during the 
        flooding by helping to maintain a sense of stability during this 
        terrible natural disaster: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends the Grand Forks Herald and its staff for their 
        dedication to community and excellence in public service; and
            (2) congratulates the newspaper on being selected to 
        receive one of our Nation's most coveted awards for public 
        service, the Pulitzer Prize.
                                 <all>
```
PUBLIC LAW 106–549—DEC. 19, 2000 114 STAT. 2743

Public Law 106–549

106th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with the Mancos Water

Conservancy District to use the Mancos Project facilities for impounding, storage,

diverting, and carriage of nonproject water for the purpose of irrigation, domestic,

municipal, industrial, and any other beneficial purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CARRIAGE OF NONPROJECT WATER BY THE MANCOS

PROJECT, COLORADO.

(a) SALE OF EXCESS WATER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the Act of August 11,

1939 (commonly known as the ‘‘Water Conservation and Utilization Act’’) (16 U.S.C. 590y et seq.), if storage or carrying capacity

has been or may be provided in excess of the requirements

of the land to be irrigated under the Mancos Project, Colorado

(referred to in this Act as the ‘‘project’’), the Secretary of the

Interior may, on such terms as the Secretary determines to

be just and equitable, contract with the Mancos Water Conservancy District and any of its member unit contractors for

impounding, storage, diverting, or carriage of nonproject water

for irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, and any other

beneficial purposes, to an extent not exceeding the excess

capacity.

(2) INTERFERENCE.—A contract under paragraph (1) shall

not impair or otherwise interfere with any authorized purpose

of the project.

(3) COST CONSIDERATIONS.—In fixing the charges under

a contract under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into

consideration—

(A) the cost of construction and maintenance of the

project, by which the nonproject water is to be diverted,

impounded, stored, or carried; and

(B) the canal by which the water is to be carried.

(4) NO ADDITIONAL CHARGES.—The Mancos Water Conservancy District shall not impose a charge for the storage, carriage, or delivery of the nonproject water in excess of the

charge paid to the United States, except to such extent as

may be reasonably necessary to cover—

(A) a proportionate share of the project cost; and

(B) the cost of carriage and delivery of the nonproject

water through the facilities of the Mancos Water Conservancy District.

Dec. 19, 2000

[S. 2594]

114 STAT. 2744 PUBLIC LAW 106–549—DEC. 19, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2594:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–427 (Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Nov. 13, Dec. 4, considered and passed House.

Æ

(b) WATER RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES NOT ENLARGED.—Nothing

in this Act enlarges or attempts to enlarge the right of the United

States, under existing law, to control any water in any State.

Approved December 19, 2000.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

TOMAS AFEWORKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C06-0628-MJP-MAT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a motion

for default judgment. (Dkt. #23). Defendants have filed a response. (Dkt. #24). Having

considered the motion and the response, and the balance of the record, the Court does hereby find

and Order as follows:

(1) Plaintiff signed his motion for default judgment on October 5, 2006. (Dkt. #23 at

1). Defendants filed their answer that same day. (Dkt. #20). Apparently, plaintiff filed his motion

before he received a copy of defendants’ answer; consequently, he was unaware that defendants

had filed their answer in a timely fashion. Because defendants have filed their answer, plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment (Dkt. #23) is DENIED.

Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 25 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

PAGE -2

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and

to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 25 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12203]

# SUMMARY:

The Department of State is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on the Department of Treasury's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) administered by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) based on the Department of State's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for applicable date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Aaron Forsberg, Director, Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520,  tel.: (202) 647 7677, email:                         *ForsbergAP@state.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

The SDN List and additional information concerning sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website.

## Notice of Department of State Actions

On July 20, 2023, the Department of State determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanction's authority listed below. 
      ( print page 69265)          ( print page 69266)          ( print page 69267)          ( print page 69268)          ( print page 69269)          ( print page 69270)          ( print page 69271)          ( print page 69272)          ( print page 69273)          ( print page 69274)          ( print page 69275)          ( print page 69276)          ( print page 69277)          ( print page 69278)          ( print page 69279)    

Roland F. de Marcellus,

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State.

BILLING CODE 4710-AE-P

[FR Doc. 2023-22109 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AE-C
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Proterozoicgeology of the Brady Butte area, Yavapai County, Arizona**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1548
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000962102
 
August 22, 2018
PUBLIC LAW 106–499—NOV. 9, 2000 114 STAT. 2223

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2951:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–431 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 23, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 106–499

106th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to investigate opportunities to better manage the water resources in the Salmon Creek watershed of

the Upper Columbia River.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SALMON CREEK WATERSHED, WASHINGTON, WATER

MANAGEMENT STUDY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may conduct

a study to investigate the opportunities to better manage the water

resources in the Salmon Creek Watershed, a tributary to the Upper

Columbia River system, Okanagoan County, Washington, so as

to restore and enhance fishery resources (especially the endangered

Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead), while maintaining

or improving the availability of water supplies for irrigation practices vital to the economic well-being of the county.

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the study under subsection (a)

shall be to derive the benefits of and further the objectives of

the comprehensive, independent study commissioned by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Okanagoan Irrigation District, which provides a credible basis for pursuing a course

of action to simultaneously achieve fish restoration and improved

irrigation conservation and efficiency.

(c) COST SHARE.—The Federal Government’s cost share for

the feasibility study shall not exceed 50 percent.

Approved November 9, 2000.

Nov. 9, 2000

[S. 2951]
No. 57801.

protests 210534-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### J. J. Boll and Grossman Radio & Electric Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of *Yi~,*1-, and 2-watt carbon resistors, composed in chief value of metal, used chiefly as parts'of radio apparatus, instruments, or devices; the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 13

CONSENT OF EXPERT

March 29, 2007



Baja Mining Corp.



United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Re: Baja Mining Corp.



I, Michael Richard Holmes, do hereby consent to the filing of the written disclosure of the technical report entitled Bateman Engineering Preliminary Assessment of the El Boleo Copper-Cobalt Project,, dated August 12, 2005, and the technical report entitled An Updated Preliminary Assessment of the Copper-Cobalt Project dated January 31, 2007 (the Technical Reports)and any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Reports in the Form 40-F Annual Report dated March 30, 2007 (the Form 40-F Annual Report) of Baja Mining Corp.(the Company), and to the filing of the Technical Report and this consent with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report.



I also consent to the use of my name in the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report.



| |     |                                                                   
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | (Signed) Michael Richard Holmes                                   
| |     | Name: Michael Richard Holmes, MSAIMM
Bateman Engineering Pty. Ltd.
| |     | Location: Brisbane, Australia
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SUZANNE CAREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5720FDB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

THIRD MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Plaintiff moves again for recusal of the undersigned. This cause of action is closed, and no

further motions are appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, 

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Recusal [dkt. # 65] is DENIED.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05720-FDB Document 66 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 1
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 08/22 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris /EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

– 2013

- 0602 **SUBJECT:** R8 State HUB Call

- August 7 , 2014 **SUMMARY :**  EPA Headquarters staff, led by Janet McCabe, and EPA R8 Regional Administrator Shaun McGrath and staff, participated in a conference call with the EPA R8 States on Friday, August 7, 2014, to discuss common questions related to the proposed rule under secti on 111(d) of the Clean Air Act

. The r ule was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA Headquarters**  McCabe, Janet Sher ry, Christopher Clouse, Matt Conlin, Beth Wilson, Erika Mark, Jeremy DeYoung, Robyn Critchfield, James Harvey, Reid Dunham, Sarah Cortelyou

- Lee, Jan Dalcher, Debra Solomon, David Santiago, Juan Ketcham

- Colwill, Jim Kurlansky, Ellen Topham, Nathan Cohen, Michael Eschmann, Erich Hight, Cate
**EPA Region 8**  Shaun McGrath Joan Card Callie Videtich Darcy O’Connor Carl Daly Laura Farris **External Participants** Brian Gustafson, SD DEQ , and staff along with representatives from the SD PUC and Energy OfficeWill Allison, CO CDPHE , and staff along with representatives from the CO PUC and Energy Office

Bryce Bird, UT DEQ , and staff along with representatives from the UT PUC and Energy Office Dave Klemp, MT DEQ , and staff along with representatives from the MT PUC and Energy Office Steve Dietrich, WY DEQ , and staff along with representatives from the WY PUC and Energy Office Terry O’Clair, ND DEQ

, and staff along with representatives from the ND PUC and Energy Office **Discussion Topics**
• Can EPA walk through the conversion from a rate based to a mass based standard, or provide the numbers?
• If a state fails to meet its goals, what are the consequences?
• Can EPA describe how the accounting for EE works.
• Does EPA have any plans to work with other Feds on new transmission, RE, and natural gas pipeline sitin g issues; streamlining the NEPA process; and addressing the Sage Grouse issue regarding energy development? These are major issues related RE development and the increased use of NGCCs.
• Can EPA discuss what might be acceptable regarding multi

- state plans ? Do states still submit individual state plans? Can they include more than one multi

- state program or initiative? What if one state drops out of the Plan during the review or compliance period?
• Does a plant have to go through NSR when it is trying to achi eve HRIs?
• Can EPA discuss the RE accounting mechanisms, both in goal setting and in compliance? Can the HRI's work the same way?
• How do states redispatch to NGCC units located in non

- attainment areas?
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 4, 2015

No. 04

- 14

- 00875

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF S.O.W.

From the 386th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1994

- JUV

- 2115

Honorable Paul Andrew Mireles , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion issued this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on November 4, 2015

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han d and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of November, 2015

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,010-03

EX PARTE DAMIAN GALVAN HERNANDEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR13-0075-02 IN THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM PARKER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of driving while

intoxicated and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends, through a habeas application filed by another inmate as the petitioner,

that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely file a notice of

appeal.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte
-2-

Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. 

As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is

the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order counsel to respond to

Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied his right to a meaningful appeal because Applicant’s counsel failed to timely file a notice

of appeal. The trial court shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether

Applicant has approved of the filing of this habeas application through an inmate-petitioner. See Ex

parte Rendon, 326 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The trial court shall also make any

other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition

of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: February 25, 2015

Do not publish