alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Notice of Application for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ending August 15, 1997

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

Docket Number: OST-97-2794
Date Filed: August 11, 1997
Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 8, 1997
Description:
    Application of Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
Section 41102 and Subpart Q of the Regulations, requests a certificate 
of public convenience and necessity authorizing Tradewinds to engage in 
interstate charter air transportation of persons, property and mail.

Docket Number: OST-97-2795
Date Filed: August 11, 1997
Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 8, 1997
Description:
    Application of Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
Section 41102 and Subpart Q of the Regulations, requests a certificate 
of public convenience and necessity authorizing Tradewinds to engage in 
foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail.
Paulette V. Twine,
Chief, Documentary Services.
[FR Doc. 97-22537 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
CHAPTER 33-15-15 

PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY 

Section 

33-15-15-01 

33-15-15-01.1 

33-15-15-01.2 

33-15-15-02 

General Provisions [Repealed] 

Purpose 

Scope 

Reclassification 

33-15-15-01. General provisions. Repealed effective February 1, 2005. 

33-15-15-01.1. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to adopt by 

reference federal provisions for the prevention of significant deterioration program 

in North Dakota. The department will continue to implement the prevention of 

significant deterioration program as part of the state implementation plan. 

History: Effective February 1, 2005. 

General Authority: NDCC 23-25-03, 23-25-04.1 

Law Implemented: NDCC 23-25-03, 23-25-04.1 

33-15-15-01.2. Scope. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

part 52, section 21, paragraphs (a)(2) through (e), (h) through (r), (v), (w), (aa), 

and (bb) as they exist on January 1, 2012, are incorporated by reference into this 

chapter. This includes revisions to the rules that were published as a final rule in 

the Federal Register by this date but had not been published in the Code of Federal 

Regulations yet. Any changes or additions to the provisions are listed below the 

affected paragraph. 

·, ~- . 
40 CFR 52.21 (d) The paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following: 

40 CFR 

52.21(k)(1) 

No concentration of a contaminant shall exceed: 

(1) The concentration permitted under the 

national primary and secol')dary ambient air 

quality standards. 

(2) The concentration permitted by the ambient 

air quality standards in chapter 33-15-02. 

This subparagraph is deleted and replaced with 

the following: 

4 
. i 

\ 

40 CFR 

52.21 (1)(1) 

(1) Any national ambient air quality standard or any 

standard in chapter 33-15-02. 

This subparagraph is deleted and replaced with 

the following: 

All estimates of ambient concentrations required under 

this chapter shall be based on applicable air quality 

models, technical data bases (including quality assured 

air quality monitoring results), and other requirements 

specified in appendix w of 40 CFR 51 ("guideline on 

air quality models" as it exists on January 1, 2012) as 

supplemented by department guidance. Technical inputs 

for these models shall be ~ased upon credible technical 

data approved in advance by the department. In making 

· such determinations, the department shall review such 

technical data to determine whether it is representative of 

actual source, meteorolog'ical, topographical, or local air 

quality circumstances . 
40 CFR 

52.21 (v)(2)(iv)(a) 

This subitem is deleted and replaced 

with the following: 

(a) Cause or contribute to a violation of an applicable 

national ambient air quality standard or any 

ambient air quality standard in chapter 33-15-02; 

or 

History: Effective February 1, 2005; amended effective April 1, 2009; April 1, 2011; 

January 1, 2013. 

General Authority: NDCC 23-25-03, 23-25-04.1 

Law Implemented: NDCC 23-25-03, 23-25-04.1
#### James J. O’BRIEN, Appellant, v. Oscar FRANCIS and Reginald Ullman, Appellees.

No. 69-406.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 27, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1970.

Charles A. Gould, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Highsmith & Nelson, Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment subsequent to a directed verdict of liability as a result of a rear-end collision in a multiple car accident.

We conclude that the defendant’s explanation of how the accident occurred was sufficient to remove the presumption of negligence, which arose because of the nature of the accident. The issues presented by the plaintiffs’ complaint and the defendant’s answer should have been submitted to the jury, under the following authorities: Pensacola Transit Co. v. Den-ton, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 296; Stark v. Vasquez, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 140, 141; Guile v. Boggs, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 26; *14Baker v. Deeks, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 108.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the verdict in favor of the appellees and against the appellant be and the same is hereby reversed, and the matter returned to the trial court for a new trial on all the issues made by the pleadings between these parties.1

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

1

. Originally, there were co-defendants in the consolidated cases below. These defendants were released by directed verdict in the trial court. No appeal from this directed verdict was taken by the plaintiffs in the trial court. Appellant, as a co-defendant, attempted to urge error in this respect, but the appeal by one co-defendant against another being improper under the authority of Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Inc., Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 575; Otis Elevator Company v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 19; Nutt v. James City, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 700; Mansell v. Eidge, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 624, said appeals were dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1312 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1312

    To amend a provision relating to employees of the United States 
 assigned to, or employed by, an Indian tribe, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2005

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend a provision relating to employees of the United States 
 assigned to, or employed by, an Indian tribe, 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 ``Reducing Conflicts of Interests in 
the Representation of Indian Tribes Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS.

    Section 104 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450i) is amended by striking subsection (j) 
and inserting the following:
    ``(j) Additional Employment Rights.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding sections 205 and 207 of 
        title 18, United States Code, an officer or employee of the 
        United States assigned to an Indian tribe under section 3372 of 
        title 5, United States Code, or section 2072 of the Revised 
        Statutes (25 U.S.C. 48), or an individual that was formerly an 
        officer or employee of the United States and who is an employee 
        of an Indian tribe employed to perform services pursuant to 
        self-governance contracts or compacts under this Act that the 
        individual formerly performed for the United States, may 
        communicate with and appear before any department, agency, 
        court, or commission on behalf of the Indian tribe with respect 
        to any matter relating to the contract or compact, including 
        any matter in which the United States is a party or has a 
        direct and substantial interest.
            ``(2) Notification of involvement in pending matter.--An 
        officer, employee, or former officer or employee described in 
        paragraph (1) shall submit to the head of each appropriate 
        department, agency, court, or commission, in writing, a 
        notification of any personal and substantial involvement the 
        officer, employee, or former officer or employee had as an 
        officer or employee of the United States with respect to the 
        pending matter.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The effective date of the amendment made by this Act shall be the 
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1


                   Suncrest Global Energy Corp.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     I, John W. Peters, principal executive and financial officer of Suncrest
Global Energy Corp. certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

a.     the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
       ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of
       Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.     the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.



Date:  January 22, 2004
                                   /s/ John W. Peters
                                   _________________________________________
                                   John W. Peters
                                   Principal Executive and Financial Officer
Office of Water • EPA 817-F-07-009 • www.epa.gov/watersecurity • JUNE 2007

Water Sector Incident Command System (ICS) and 

 National Incident Management System (NIMS) 

 Training 

Why is Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training being offered? 

Feedback from utilities, states, EPA regions, and other 

stakeholders indicates that water sector-specific ICS and 

NIMS training remains a priority need for 2007. This new 

1-day ICS and NIMS workshop sponsored by the EPA 

Water Security Division will help water and wastewater 

utilities to better understand ICS, integrate with other first 

responders within an expanding ICS structure, and 

implement NIMS concepts and principles that will help 

utilities provide mutual aid and assistance to one another. 

What is ICS?

ICS, or the Incident Command System, is a standardized, on-scene, all hazard incident 

management concept. ICS allows its users to adopt an integrated organizational structure to 

match the complexities and demands of single or multiple incidents without being hindered by 

jurisdictional boundaries.

What is NIMS? 

NIMS, or the National Incident Management System, is a consistent nationwide template that 

enables all government and non-governmental organizations to work together during domestic 

incidents. NIMS requires all agencies to use ICS when responding to incidents. 

What topics will be covered at the Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training?

The ICS/NIMS training will cover: 

• ICS basics • Unified and Area Command 

• The six principles of NIMS • Mutual Aid and Assistance 

Why should I attend the Water Sector ICS/NIMS 

Training? 

First, it is vital to understand ICS, as this incident management system is 

the national standard for responding to any incident anywhere in the U.S. Second, using ICS is 

required by NIMS. Third, understanding NIMS is an important step for establishing utility 

mutual aid networks. Finally, FEMA IS-100 (Introductory ICS) and IS-700 (NIMS, An 

Introduction) certifications will be available to all participants. In some locations, CEUs will also 

be offered. 

Who should attend the Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training? 

Small, medium and large water and wastewater utilities, water sector trainers, state drinking water 

primacy agencies, state wastewater permitting agencies, and federal workers with an active role 

in water sector emergency response should attend this training. There is no fee to attend this 

training. 

What are the dates for the Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training?

Please log on to http://www.horsleywitten.com/ICStraining for a complete listing of locations and 

dates, to view a detailed agenda, and to register for a workshop.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 444]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ444.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 5009]]

Public Law 110-444
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
4 South Main Street in Wallingford, Connecticut, as the ``CWO Richard R. 
   Lee Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 21, 2008 -  [H.R. 6834]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CWO RICHARD R. LEE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4 South Main Street in Wallingford, Connecticut, shall be 
known and designated as the ``CWO Richard R. Lee Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``CWO Richard 
R. Lee Post Office Building''.

    Approved October 21, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6834:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Sept. 27, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Skip Navigation

# 

## Benton Lake WMDWetland Management District  |    Montana

SearchAll Refuges

          - Visit             - Plan Your Visit
            - Rules and Regulations
            -             
            - Visitor Activities
            - Law Enforcement
            -             
            - Permits
            -             
          - Wildlife & Habitat
          - About the District

## Long Lake

### About Long Lake Waterfowl Production Area

Size:  646 acresLocation:  3.5 miles northeast of SunburstHabitat:  Long Lake WPA is characterized by 297 acres of wetlands and 349 acres of tame grassland.Facilities:  There are no designated parking areas at Long Lake WPA.  Use caution when parking on the side of the road.**Directions**From Sunburst:  Drive east on Nine Mile Road.  Turn left/north on Iverson Road.  Drive approximately 2 miles.  Long Lake WPA is located on both sides of the road.Local Area Map 

            - Plan Your Visit
            - Arod Lakes
            - Big Sag
            - Blackfoot
            - Blackhurst
            - Brown
            - Brumwell
            - Cemetary
            - Danbrook
            - Dunk
            - Ehli
            - Furnell
            - H2-0
            - Hartelius
            - Hingham Lake
            - Jarina
            - Kingsbury  Lake
            - Kleinschmidt Lake
            - Long Lake
            - Peterson
            - Sands
            - Savik
            - Schrammeck Lake
            - Upsata Lake

            - Print
            -  Share
            - Maps
            - Multimedia

### What We Do

              - Resource Management
              - Conservation
              - Get Involved
              - Partnerships

### Northern Pintail

Northern pintails are a common sight on the Benton Lake Wetland Management District.

Return to main navigation
        - Benton Lake WMD Home
        - Regional Office
        - Refuges/Districts Nearby
        - Contact Us

##### U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

##### National Wildlife Refuge System

            - Notices  
            - Accessibility  
            - Disclaimer  
            - Privacy  
            - FOIA  

##### Department of the Interior

##### USA.gov
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL MILAY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10128 

D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00120-JAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Michael Milay appeals the 12-month-and-one-day sentence, and a condition 

of supervised release, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to 

register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-10128 

For the first time on appeal, Milay contends that the district court 

procedurally erred by failing to consider his non-frivolous sentencing arguments, 

and adequately explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States 

v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that 

there is none. The record reflects that the court considered and responded to 

Milay’s arguments, and sufficiently explained the below-Guidelines sentence. See 

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, 

notwithstanding the court’s misstatement regarding the length of the aggregate 

term, the record is clear that the court intended to impose a sentence of twelve 

months and one day for the instant offense and run it consecutively to the sevenmonth sentence for Milay’s violation of supervised release.

Milay also challenges a condition of his supervised release that prohibits him 

from communicating or interacting with known convicted felons, absent 

permission from his probation officer. He contends that the condition is not 

reasonably related to his rehabilitation because some of his family members are 

felons and it is beneficial to him to have relationships with those family members. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this standard condition. 

See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(8) (2016); United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 

(9th Cir. 2008). The court exempted Milay’s father, the only family member 

Milay identified as affected by the condition, and the condition is reasonably 
3 17-10128 

related to the relevant sentencing factors, and involves no greater deprivation of 

liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of supervised release. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); Daniels, 541 F.3d at 924. Contrary to Milay’s argument, 

the court was not required to explain further its reasons for imposing the condition. 

See Daniels, 541 F.3d at 924.

AFFIRMED.
[Invitation to Comment]  [Federal Interagency Weed Committee]
# Yokosuka PPP&M box shop crafts specialty wooden containers

/ Published Dec. 7, 2017
YOKOSUKA, Japan, DLA Distribution Yokosuka, Japan’s Preservation, Packaging, Packing and Marking team consists of packing experts who are trained to design and assemble special packages and crates for protecting high value and extremely unique requirements. These reimbursable services and support are provided in addition to the teams core function to pack material for shipment as part of our core business.  The PPP&M team has processed an average of 13,000 re-packaging and 101,000 re-marking in the last 3 years, with the average monetary value of $432,000, servicing over 40 customers. The Yokosuka PPP&M box shop crafts wooden containers to protect uniquely shaped items during shipment.  Most recently, the box shop built 12 special boxes to house the USS Fitzgerald's propellers for shipment to Mississippi while the Fitzgerald undergoes repairs. They also constructed 18 crates to house CH-53 Main Rotor Blades for transport from Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, for refurbishment work at the repair depot.  The crates are crafted to exact standards to ensure the rotor blades are properly supported along their length to prevent damage during shipment.
|   | Name of Subsidiary                     |   | State or Jurisdiction of      Incorporation |   | DBAs                     |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                                   |   |                                        |   |                     |
| 1.     | Tailored      Business Systems, Inc.   |   | Georgia                                     |   | None.                    |
| 2.     | MessageVision,      Inc.               |   | California                                  |   | None.                    |
| 3.     | GoSolutions,      Inc.                 |   | Florida                                     |   | GoSolo      Technologies |
| 4.     | GoSolo      Technologies, Inc.         |   | Florida                                     |   |                     |
| 5.     | GoSolutions      Canada, Inc.          |   | Canada                                      |   |                     |
| 6.     | Decision      Management Company, Inc. |   | California                                  |   | Questys      Solutions   |

----
#### Kit Armin HAYDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-245.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Feb. 5, 1970.

Kit Armin Hayden, in pro. per.

Edward L. Bush, Gainesville, amicus curiae.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.