alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1670-1671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-414]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-RO7-RCRA-2006-0878; FRL-8269-1]


Adequacy of Nebraska Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program; 
Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the 
direct final rule for Adequacy of Nebraska Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfill Program, published on November 16, 2006.

DATES: Effective January 16, 2007, EPA withdraws the direct final rule

[[Page 1671]]

published at 71 FR 66686 on November 16, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chilton McLaughlin, Solid Waste/
Pollution Prevention Branch, EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 
City, Kansas 66101, telephone (913) 551-7666, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b7658575a4e5c5357525515585352574f54557b5e4b5a155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1ac828d809486898d888fcf8289888d958e8fa1849180cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are 
withdrawing the direct final rule for Adequacy of Nebraska Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfill Program published on November 16, 2006 (71 FR 
66686). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse 
comment by January 16, 2007, the direct final rule would not take 
effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register. On December 8, 2006, the Federal Register published a 
correction notice (71 FR 71241) establishing December 18, 2006, as the 
date by which EPA would receive comment. We subsequently received an 
adverse comment on that direct final rule. We will address that comment 
in a subsequent final action. As stated in the direct final rule and 
the parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment 
period in this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 239

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 258

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment disposal, 
Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section 
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
 [FR Doc. E7-414 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 49168.

#### Protests 62074-K, etc., of S. Lisk & Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The record fully established that the pencil sharpeners in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 48152, the record in which case was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained to this extent,
No. 50965.

#### Petition 6432-R of W. T. Grant Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
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

1

 By order filed March 11, 2005, this case was reassigned from Judge William B. Shubb to

Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. The case number is now CIV S-04-1796 FCD DAD P.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES DANIEL CARL, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1796 FCD1 DAD P

vs.

WARDEN M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ August 5, 2005 request for leave to file a supplemental answer is

granted;

2. Petitioner may file and serve a reply within thirty days after service of this

order; and

3. The Clerk shall file the fourteen-page supplemental answer submitted as

Attachment 1 to respondents’ August 5, 2005 request, excluding the attachment cover page. 

DATED: August 15, 2005.

DAD:13

carl1796.suppans

Case 2:04-cv-01796-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 1
-1- 

Stipulation and Order for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice - Case No. CIV. S-04-2129 WBS KJM 

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

27

28

Horace W. Green (SBN 115699) 

Joanne M. Ryan (SBN 199193) 

GREEN & HUMBERT 

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 438 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 837-5433 

Facsimile: (415) 837-0127 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA 

Douglas A. Haydel (SBN 42859) 

HAYDEL & ORNELLAS 

Professional Law Corporation 

3350 Deer Park Drive, Suite A 

Stockton, California 95219 

Telephone: (209) 956-5900 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MATTHEW BURKE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW BURKE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CIV. S-04-2129 WBS KJM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH 

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff MATTHEW BURKE (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant UNUM LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA (“Defendant”) by and through their respective 

counsel of record, hereby stipulate that this matter be dismissed with prejudice, each 

party to bear its own costs of suit and attorney’s fees. 

Case 2:04-cv-02129-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

Stipulation and Order for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice - Case No. CIV. S-04-2129 WBS KJM 

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

27

28

DATE: July 18, 2005 GREEN & HUMBERT 

By: /s/ Horace W. Green 

HORACE W. GREEN 

JOANNE M. RYAN 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Unum Life Insurance Company of 

America 

DATE: July 14, 2005 HAYDEL & ORNELLAS 

By: /s/ Douglas A. Haydel 

DOUGLAS A. HAYDEL 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Matthew Burke 

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures 

indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. 

DATE: July 18, 2005 GREEN & HUMBERT 

By: /s/ Horace W. Green

HORACE W. GREEN 

 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 25, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-02129-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4235 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 417
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4235

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
    reauthorize grants to support for law enforcement officers and 
                   families, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 2024

 Mr. Hawley (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Durbin, Ms. 
   Klobuchar, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Booker, Mr. 
 Padilla, Mr. Welch, Ms. Butler, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Cornyn, 
 Mr. Cruz, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Tillis, and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

                              June 5, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Durbin, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
    reauthorize grants to support for law enforcement officers and 
                   families, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reauthorizing Support and Treatment 
for Officers in Crisis Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 1001(a)(21) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)(21)) is amended by 
striking ``2020 through 2024'' and inserting ``2025 through 2029''.
                                                       Calendar No. 417

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4235

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
    reauthorize grants to support for law enforcement officers and 
                   families, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 5, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID T. CHUBBUCK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1748 MCE DAD P

vs.

THE CDC: HIGH DESERT STATE

PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file his amended complaint. Good

cause appearing, this request will be granted. Plaintiff’s request for an order protecting him from

limitations on law library access is not supported by a brief on the legal issues and a declaration

showing irreparable injury. The latter request will therefore be denied. IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 25, 2006 request for extension of time is granted, and

plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be filed within sixty days from the date of this order; and

2. Plaintiff’s January 25, 2006 request for an order of protection is denied.

DATED: January 31, 2006.

DAD:13:bb

chub1748.36

Case 2:04-cv-01748-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 13,133.

#### SMOOT v. LEE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 459.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term. 1824.

Principal and Suretv — Action of Prison-Bounds Bond.

' In an action against the surety in a prison-hounds bond the defendant will not be permitted to adduce evidence that the principal (the debt- or) was insolvent, and therefore the plaintiff sustained no damage.

Debt on a prison-bounds bond given by W. Wise, who broke the bounds.

Mr. Wallach, for defendant

(the surety), offered evidence to prove that Wise was insolvent when the bond was given, and therefore the plaintiff had suffered no damage by the breach of the condition of the bond.

But

THE COURT

(nem. con.) rejected the evidence.
Before the Second Division,

September 20, 1949

No. 53564.

protest 143320-K (Portland, Me.).

#### Pelton Goudey *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When the case was called for trial there was no-appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. The record disclosed that the protest was-received by the collector on September 23, 1948, but the entry was not liquidated until December 1, 1948. Since section 514 provides that a protest may be filed against the liquidation of the collector “within sixty days after, but not before such liquidation,” it was held that the protest was not filed in accordance with law. The protest was therefore dismissed.
Exhibit 10.14

                              Katy Industries, Inc.
                       Director Compensation Arrangements

1.    Retainer

            a.    Each non-employee director receives a $10,000 annual retainer,
                  paid annually in advance.

            b.    The chair of the Compensation Committee and the chair of the
                  Audit Committee each receive an additional $6,000 annual
                  retainer, paid annually in advance.

2.    Meeting Fees

            a.    Each non-employee director is paid $2,500 for each full Board
                  meeting he or she attends in person and $1,000 for each full
                  Board meeting he or she attends telephonically.

            b.    Each non-employee director is paid $1,000 for each full
                  Committee meeting he or she attends in person and $500 for
                  each full Committee meeting he or she attends telephonically.

3.    Stock Options

            a.    Each non-employee director receives an annual option grant of
                  2,000 options at the May Board Meeting each year. The exercise
                  price is the fair market value on the date of grant. The
                  director may exercise these options at any time during the ten
                  years from the date of grant.

4.    Stock Grant

            a.    Each non-employee director receives a grant of 1,000 shares of
                  Katy Common Stock at the May Board Meeting each year. These
                  shares are unrestricted.

5.    Meeting Expenses

            a.    Katy reimburses directors for their expenses incurred in
                  attending Board of Director and Committee meetings.

6.    Deferred Compensation Plan

            a.    Each non-employee director may defer directors' fees,
                  retainers and other compensation paid for services as a
                  director until the later of the director's attainment of age
                  62 or ceasing to be a director. Each director has 30 days
                  before the beginning of a Plan Year (as defined in the
                  Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan) in which to elect to
                  participate in the Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan.
                  Directors may invest these amounts in one or more investment
                  alternatives offered by Katy. Directors may elect to receive
                  distributions of deferred amounts in a lump sum or five annual
                  installments.

Note: Class II directors and those directors that are also officers do not
receive the compensation described in this section for their service on the
Board of Directors.


                                       89
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0143 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0143

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks (12131/6/2006 - C6-0038/2007 - 2006/0005(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0525 - 0525 *

P6_TA(2007)0143

Assessment and management of flood risks ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks (12131/6/2006 — C6-0038/2007 — 2006/0005(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (12131/6/2006 — C6-0038/2007),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0015) [2],

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0064/2007);

1. Approves the common position as amended;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Texts Adopted, 13.6.2006, P6_TA(2006)0253.

[2] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### The Agricultural Bank *versus*Joel Wilson *& al.*

TIio transfer of stock of a bank on its books, although no certificate of ownership is given, is sufficient to pass the property in the shares ; and constitutes a valid consideration for a note given to the bank therefor.

This action Was submitted to the decision of the Court upon the facts stated in the deposition of Cornelius Bedlow, jr. the former cashier of the bank.

The facts appear in the opinion.

The counsel submitted the case, upon the arguments in the action, in favor of the same plaintiffs against Burr & al. *ante,*p. 256.

*Kent*and *Robinson,*for the plaintiffs.

*Hóbbs,*for the defendants.

The opinion of the majority of the Court, Whitman C. J. concurring in the result, but giving a separate opinion, was drawn up by

Shepley J.

This suit is upon a promissory note for the sum of two thousand one hundred and twenty-four dollars and fifty cents, made by the defendants on the first day of October, 1838, and payable to the bank in six months from the date. The case is submitted, as an agreed statement, upon the deposition of the former cashier of the bank. He states, in substance, that, “two thousand dollars worth” of the stock of the bank, which before that time appeared to have been the property of other persons, was at the request of the directors of the bank transferred to one of these defendants, and that it continued to stand in his name upon the books of the bank, until the receivers took possession of its assets ; that no certificates were received by him; that this note was at the request of the directors given for that stock ; that they promised that the defendants should not be called upon to pay it; that no formal vote was passed on the subject; that no written agreement was made, “but that if was agreed or understood, that the debtors should be indemnified in the same manner as expressed in the written agreement executed by said directors, *274with Messrs. Burr and Holbrook; and that reference was specially made in the arrangement to said agreement with Burr and Holbrook, which was then in the bank.” He also states, that the former owners of the stock had never paid for it except by their notes, which were in the bank, when it commenced business, and were delivered up to them on an *agreement*made by the directors with them, that they should convey their stock to the bank and receive their notes. By the application of the principles of law stated in the case of this bank against Burr and Holbrook, decided at this term, to the facts in this case, the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover.

Defendants to be defaulted
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY JOE JONES, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2048 RRB KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On November 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a request that the action be dismissed. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41 (a). Defendants have not opposed the request, except to request that it be with

prejudice. Defendants have not, however, shown any legal prejudice that would flow from a

dismissal without prejudice. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S., 100 F.3d 94, 96-98 (9th Cir. 1996). 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 (a)(2).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

Case 2:04-cv-02048-RRB -KJM Document 88 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 12, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

jone2048.vd

Case 2:04-cv-02048-RRB -KJM Document 88 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ONTIVERAS, No. CIV S-04-1141-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, 

et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, brings this petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is

petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 24) to file a supplemental memorandum of

points and authorities addressing the merits of the claims raised in this petition.

Given the complexity of the issues raised in this case, the court appointed counsel

to represent petitioner and provided petitioner, through appointed counsel, the opportunity to file

a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities within 30 days. Petitioner now seeks a

45-day extension of that deadline. Good cause appearing therefor, the request will be granted.

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01141-GEB-CMK Document 25 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 24) is granted;

2. Within 45 days of the date of this order, petitioner, through appointed

counsel, may file a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities addressing the merits of

the claims raised in this petition;

3. Within 30 days after service of petitioner’s supplemental memorandum in

support of the petition, or within 30 days after expiration of the time to do so if none is filed,

respondents shall file an answer; and

4. Petitioner’s traverse is due within 30 days after service of respondents’

answer. 

DATED: October 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01141-GEB-CMK Document 25 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2006311EN.01006101.xml

| 19.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/61

---

Corresponding values of the thresholds of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

(2006/C 311/17)

The corresponding values in the national currencies of Bulgaria and Romania of the thresholds of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 (1), are the following:

1

| EUR 80 000 | BGN | Bulgarian Lev | 156 268 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | RON | new Romanian Leu | 311 233 |

EUR 80 000

BGN

Bulgarian Lev

156 268

RON

new Romanian Leu

311 233

| EUR 137 000 | BGN | Bulgarian Lev | 267 609 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | RON | new Romanian Leu | 532 987 |

EUR 137 000

BGN

Bulgarian Lev

267 609

RON

new Romanian Leu

532 987

| EUR 211 000 | BGN | Bulgarian Lev | 412 157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | RON | new Romanian Leu | 820 878 |

EUR 211 000

BGN

Bulgarian Lev

412 157

RON

new Romanian Leu

820 878

| EUR 422 000 | BGN | Bulgarian Lev | 824 313 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | RON | new Romanian Leu | 1 641 756 |

EUR 422 000

BGN

Bulgarian Lev

824 313

RON

new Romanian Leu

1 641 756

| EUR 1 000 000 | BGN | Bulgarian Lev | 1 953 348 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | RON | new Romanian Leu | 3 890 417 |

EUR 1 000 000

BGN

Bulgarian Lev

1 953 348

RON

new Romanian Leu

3 890 417

| EUR 5 278 000 | BGN | Bulgarian Lev | 10 309 773 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | RON | new Romanian Leu | 20 533 621 |

EUR 5 278 000

BGN

Bulgarian Lev

10 309 773

RON

new Romanian Leu

20 533 621

---

(1)  OJ L 333, 20.12.2005, p. 28.

1

---