alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
us. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

The Honorable Debra Gifford 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 8068 

Port Alexander, Alaska 99836 

Dear Mayor Gifford: 

November 2, 2009 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

I would like to update you on the essential air service situation at Port Alexander and give you 

an opportunity to submit comments, if you wish. 

As you know, by Order 2009-9-19, issued September 29,2009, the Department solicited 

proposals from air carriers interested in providing essential air service (EAS) at Port 

Alexander in anticipation of the end of the current contract on February 28,2010. At this 

stage, we would normally ask for your preferences for various carriers and service options. 

However, in response to that order, Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. (Harris Air) was the only 

carrier to submit a proposal. We want to give you an opportunity to submit any final 

comments for the record that you may have before we make a carrier-selection 

recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. 

In addition to our brief description below, the proposal, as well as Order 2009-9-19, can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov, by doing a search on Docket DOT-OST-1999-6244. 

Harris Air proposes to continue to provide its current level of service between Port Alexander 

and Sitka, consisting of two nonstop round trips each week with 3-seat Cessna 185 aircraft, at 

an annual subsidy rate of $60,083. 

Please note that proposed schedules are illustrative and the carrier may make schedule 

changes to reflect changing conditions. The Department expects subsidized air carriers to 

maintain well-timed and well-spaced flights to ensure full compensation. 

My purpose in writing to you at this time is to give you an opportunity to submit any final 

comments you might have on the proposed service. We request that you review this 

information as expeditiously as possible and submit any comments you may have as soon as 

possible, but in any case no later than November 16,2009. We will carefully consider your 

comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a final decision. 
2 

If you have questions, or if you find that you need additional time to draft your comments, 

please let us know. 

Please submit your comments to me at: EAS@doLgov 

We would appreciate it if you would also send a copy of your comments by fax to 

202-366-7638, or by email to both dennis.devany@doLgov and renee.williams@dot.gov. 

You should also send a copy of your comments to Harris Air. If you have any questions, 

please feel free to contact me or G. Renee Williams of my staff at 202-366-1058. 

Sincerely, 

cD~~[1t!~/ Dennis J. De~ny, Chief J 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2511]


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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Agency Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review; Comment 
Request

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of 
Veterans Affairs, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) the following proposal for the collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0353.
    Title and Form Number: Certification of Lessons Completed, VA Form 
22-6553b.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Need and Uses: The information collected on the form is used to 
determine the number of lessons completed by the student and serviced 
by the school, and if necessary to determine the date of completion or 
termination of correspondence training. Without this information, the 
VA would be unable to determine the proper payment or the student's 
status.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 3,186 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: 3.02 (Average Individual Response Per 
Year.).
    Estimated Total Number of Responses: 19,117.
    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 6,330.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this submission may be obtained from Ron Taylor, 
VA Clearance Officer (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8015.
    Comments and recommendations concerning this submission should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources 
and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. DO NOT send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer by March 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Taylor, VA Clearance Officer 
(045A4), (202) 273-8015.

    Dated: January 13, 1997.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Donald L. Neilson,
Director, Information Management Service
[FR Doc. 97-2511 Filed 1-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
#### STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, v. Calvin H. MILEY, Respondent.

No. 40695.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 19, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 222.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# Úradný vestník C 168I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 168I |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 645. mája 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 168I

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 645. mája 2021

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Oznámenia |
| | SPOLOČNÉ VYHLÁSENIA |
| | Európsky parlamentRada |
| 2021/C 168 I/01 | Spoločné vyhlásenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady o financovaní oblasti hodnôt Únie v roku 2021 | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

II   Oznámenia

SPOLOČNÉ VYHLÁSENIA

Európsky parlamentRada

2021/C 168 I/01

Spoločné vyhlásenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady o financovaní oblasti hodnôt Únie v roku 2021

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

II Oznámenia

SPOLOČNÉ VYHLÁSENIA

Európsky parlament Rada

| 5.5.2021 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CI 168/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2021

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CI 168/1

---

Spoločné vyhlásenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady o financovaní oblasti hodnôt Únie v roku 2021

(2021/C 168 I/01)

Bez toho, aby boli dotknuté právomoci rozpočtového orgánu, spoluzákonodarcovia súhlasia s tým, že oblasť Hodnoty Únie programu Občianstvo, rovnosť, práva a hodnoty by mala byť od 1. januára 2021 vybavená značnými finančnými prostriedkami.

Spoluzákonodarcovia vyzývajú Komisiu, aby prijala vhodné opatrenia na dosiahnutie tohto cieľa, najmä s cieľom posúdiť využívanie nástrojov flexibility v právnom rámci ročného rozpočtu EÚ na rok 2021 v súlade s kritériami aktivácie stanovenými v nariadení o VFR.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03 - 23 - 0023 7 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00238 - CR Spencer Ralph Graham , Appellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee
FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 20 - 0624 - K26 & 20 - 0625 - K26 THE HONORABLE M ICHAEL KEASLER , JU DGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Spencer Ralph Graham has filed two notices of appeal, and each appeal has been assigned a separate appellate cause number in this Court. In each cause, appellant seeks to ap peal from a judgment of conviction signed by the district court on February 3, 2023
. Appellant has now filed a motion in each ca u se requesting that we consolidate the records and dismiss one of the appeals. We grant the motion s and dismiss caus e numbe r 0 3
- 23
- 00237
- C R . See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). T he record and all filings from cause number 03
- 23
- 00237
- CR are c onsolidated into cause number 03
- 23
- 0023 8
- CR , and the consolidated appeal will proceed und er cause number 03
- 23
- 0023 8
- CR
. See State v. Padon , No s . 03
- 16
- 005 30
- CR, 03
- 16
- 0053 1
- CR , 03
- 16
- 0053 2
- CR , 2016 WL 4628063, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 31, 2016 , no pet. ) (mem . op. , not designated for publ ication) ( following similar con solidat ion and dismissal procedure).2 _______________________________ __ __ __ _____ Edward Smith , Justice Before Justices Baker, Tr iana , and Smith No. 03
- 23
- 0023 7
- CR Dismissed No. 03
- 23
- 0023 8
- CR Consolidated Filed: July 19, 2023 Do Not Publish
### Summary of records of surface waters at base stations in Colorado River Basin, 1891-1938

By: W.E. Dickinson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp918

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Collection by the Geological Survey of records of stream flow in the Colorado River Basin was begun in August 1889, when three gaging stations were established in Arizona, on' the Gila, Salt, and Verde Rivers. In 1894-95 the work was extended to include 15 gaging stations, on tributary streams at points in the basin where irrigation development was most intensive, and by 1910 the number had increased to 109. In 1938 there were 262 gaging stations, located to advantage throughout the basin. 

The earliest known records of discharge in the Colorado River Basin were individual measurements of the main river, made by engineers of the United States Army, 1 at Stone's Ferry near Boulder Canyon August 12, 1875, at Camp Mohave September 2, 1875, and at Fort Yuma March 20, 1876. In the summer of 1876, the Southern Pacific Co. established a gage near the railroad bridge over Colorado River at Yuma, and daily gage readings at that point, now available, are continuous since January 1, 1878.

Modern irrigation, using surface waters diverted from various streams in the basin, was begun many years before the first continuous records of discharge Had been obtained. As developments for irrigation and other purposes increased in size and number, became more systematized, and required greater knowledge of water supply, the collection of records of stream flow was substantially augmented through the assistance of many interested parties and agencies, both private and public. 

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARVIN ALBERTO VIVAS-MORALES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) C.A. No. 03-312 Erie

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on 

October 1, 2003 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The magistrate judge's report and recommendation, filed on July 25, 2005,

recommends that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that the

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution be granted. The parties were

allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was attempted

on Plaintiff by certified mail at York County Prison, his last known address of record,

and on the Defendant. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the complaint

and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the following

order is entered:

AND NOW, this 12th Day of August, 2005;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion [Doc. No. 24] is GRANTED

and the within civil rights action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter filed on July 25,

2005 is adopted as the opinion of the court.

 s/ SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cc: All parties of record

U.S. Magistrate Judge Baxter

Case 1:03-cv-00312-SJM-SPB Document 30 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

                    In connection with theAnnual Report of Primary Business Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick Matthews, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)               The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)               The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/  Patrick Matthews                                                                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick  Matthews                                                                       |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |   |
| May  19, 2005                                                                           |   |
|                                                                                         |        |  |

 

----
### Water resources of the Salmon Falls Creek basin, Idaho-Nevada

By: E. G. Crosthwaite

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1879D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 31.1  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2008 on Form 10-Q of China Holdings, Inc.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.           The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.           The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Oct. 1, 2008  /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Executive Officer
No. 85033 

# FILE

, J. Hardesty IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ORDERDISMISSINGAPPEAL This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;Jacqueline M. Bluth, Judge.

This court's review of this appeal revealed a potential jurisdictional defect. The judgment of conviction was entered on May 25, 2022. However, the notice of appeal was not filed until July 12, 2022, well after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period prescribed by NRAP 4(b). Accordingly, on July 20, 2022, this court directed appellant's counsel to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.

Inresponsetothiscourt's show-causeorder, appellant'scounsel concedes that this appeal was untimely filed.Because an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court, see Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994), this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal and ORDERSthis appeal DISMISSED.



### (74Th. DERRICK BRYAN ALLEN, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

J. Stiglich Herndon 

# 7_2- wird' SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

I947Acc: Hon. Jacqueline M. Bluth, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
4(1.) 1447A 9
#### Michael HUDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2239.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Michael Hudson, appeals his conviction for aggravated battery arising *634out of a barroom altercation and contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The evidence consisted of a post-trial admission of the victim, Dorothy Jackson, that several weeks prior to the subject altercation she was involved in another altercation wherein she displayed a firearm in a threatening manner. Defendant argues that this admission gave Jackson a reputation for propensity to carry and use firearms, and this reputation was known to him so as to give him a well founded belief that the use of deadly force by him was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm being inflicted by Jackson.

A motion for new trial will not be granted for newly discovered evidence unless such evidence is discovered after trial; due diligence is exercised to present it at trial; it goes to the merits of the case and not merely to impeach a witness who testified; it is not cumulative and it is such as would produce a different verdict. *Harvey v. State,*87 So.2d 582 (Fla.1956); *Weeks v. State,*253 So.2d 459 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).

Under these controlling principles of law, we find that no reversible error has been made to appear. First, Jackson testified at the trial; nevertheless, defense counsel did not question her with respect to the prior altercation or reputation for violence even though both defendant and his brother, Reuben, testified that she, in fact, had such a reputation. Thus, we find the required exercise of due diligence to be lacking. Second and more important, Jackson’s admission was merely cumulative. Reuben, an eye-witness, testified on behalf of his brother Michael, that he had advised Michael that Jackson carried a pistol. The defendant also testified that Jackson approached him with her hand in her pocketbook and fearing she had a weapon, that’s when he swung at her. Further, there was testimony that the defendant knew Jackson had a bad reputation.

We, therefore, find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Cf. *Luster v. State,*262 So.2d 910 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); *Dames v. State,*314 So.2d 171 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) and see *State v. Sears,*148 Fla. 89, 3 So.2d 721 (1941).

Affirmed.