alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Minerals Information

HomeCommodityCountryStateProductsContacts

MI Home Commodity

Bauxite and AluminaStatistics and Information

| Publications | Contacts | Links | Subscribe |
|--------------|----------|-------|-----------|

		Bauxite is a naturally occurring, heterogeneous material composed primarily of one or 		more aluminum hydroxide minerals, plus various mixtures of silica, iron oxide, titania, 		aluminosilicate, and other impurities in minor or trace amounts.  The principal 		aluminum hydroxide minerals found in varying proportions with bauxites are gibbsite and 		the polymorphs boehmite and diaspore.  Bauxites are typically classified 		according to their intended commercial application:  abrasive, cement, chemical, 		metallurgical, refractory, etc.  The bulk of world bauxite 		production (approximately 85%) is used as feed for the manufacture of alumina via a 		wet chemical caustic leach method commonly known as the Bayer process.  		Subsequently, the majority of the resulting alumina produced from this refining process 		is in turn employed as the feedstock for the production of aluminum metal by the 		electrolytic reduction of alumina in a molten bath of natural or synthetic 		cryolite (Na3AlF6), the Hall-Héroult process.	

Publications

If you are interested in receiving an email notice when a publication is added to this page,please refer to Minerals Information List Services.

**Annual Publications**

Mineral Commodity Summaries
    - Bauxite and Alumina    PDF Format:      	|  1996 	|  1997  	|  1998  	|  1999  	|  2000  	|  2001  	|  2002  	|  2003  	|  2004 	|  2005 	|  2006 	|  2007 	|  2008 	|  2009     |  2010     |  2011     |  2012      | 2013 	| Appendixes
Minerals Yearbook
- Bauxite and Alumina    PDF Format:      	|  1994  	|  1995  	|  1996  	|  1997  	|  1998  	|  1999  	|  2000  	|  2001  	|  2002  	|  2003 	|  2004 	|  2005 	|  2006 	|  2007     |  2008     |  2009     |  2010     |  2011 	|    XLS Format:      	|  2002  	|  2003 	|  2004 	|  2005 	|  2006 	|  2007     |  2008     |  2009     |  2010     |  2011 	| Archive    	| 1932-1993 	|
**Quarterly Publications**

Mineral Industry Surveys
- Bauxite and Alumina        PDF Format:          2013:    |  First Quarter     |  Second Quarter 	|                   2012:     |  Second Quarter     |  Third Quarter     |  Fourth Quarter     |        XLSX Format:          2013:    |  First Quarter     |  Second Quarter 	|              XLS Format:          2012:     |  Second Quarter     |  Third Quarter     |  Fourth Quarter     |    **Special Publications**-  Statistical Compendium  Bauxite and Alumina
-  Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States	Data Series 140	-  Bauxite and Alumina   Review of selected global mineral industries in 2011 and an outlook to 2017    Open-File Report 2013-1091    
Contact-  USGS Mineral Commodity Specialist  	 E. Lee Bray     Phone: 703-648-4979
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6308

RYRICKA NIKITA CUSTIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. EARL BARKSDALE, Warden Red Onion State Prison; M. YOUNCE, A Building Unit Manager Red Onion State Prison; I. EDWARDS, Records Department Red Onion State Prison; P. HARLESS, Medical Department Red Onion State Prison; E. SOWARDS , Defendants

- Appellees , and HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA DOC; H. SMITH, Doctor Red Onion Stat e Prison , Defendants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Elizabeth Kay Dillon , District Judge. ( 7:16

- cv
- 00391

- EKD

- RSB )

Submitted : June 20, 2018 Decided: June 27, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Ryricka Nikita Custis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Ryricka Nikita Custis appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Custis v. Barksdale , No. 7:16

- cv
- 00391

- EKD

- RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2018 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 52647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26988]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 52647]]


                Presidential Determination No. 97-35 of September 26, 
                1997

                
Presidential Determination on Classified 
                Information
                Concerning the Air Force's Operating Location Near
                Groom Lake, Nevada

                Memorandum for the Administrator of the Environmental 
                Protection Agency [and] the Secretary of the Air Force

                I find that it is in the paramount interest of the 
                United States to exempt the United States Air Force's 
                operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada (the subject 
                of litigation in Kasza v. Browner (D. Nev. CV-S-94-795-
                PMP) and Frost v. Perry (D. Nev. CV-S-94-714-PMP)), 
                from any applicable requirement for the disclosure to 
                unauthorized persons of classified information 
                concerning that operating location. Therefore, pursuant 
                to 42 U.S.C. 6961(a), I hereby exempt the Air Force's 
                operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada, from any 
                Federal, State, interstate, or local provision 
                respecting control and abatement of solid waste or 
                hazardous waste disposal that would require the 
                disclosure of classified information concerning that 
                operating location to any unauthorized person. This 
                exemption shall be effective for the full one-year 
                statutory period.

                Nothing herein is intended to: (a) imply that in the 
                absence of such a Presidential exemption, the Resource 
                Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or any other 
                provision of law permits or requires disclosure of 
                classified information to unauthorized persons; or (b) 
                limit the applicability or enforcement of any 
                requirement of law applicable to the Air Force's 
                operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada, except 
                those provisions, if any, that would require the 
                disclosure of classified information.

                The Secretary of the Air Force is authorized and 
                directed to publish this determination in the Federal 
                Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 26, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-26988
Filed 10-7-97; 10:31 am]
Billing code 3910-01-M
The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) invites you to participate in the U.S. DOT

Summit on Pedestrian Safety: Virtual Series. The purpose of this webinar series is to provide a virtual 

platform for dialogue and opportunity to discuss pedestrian safety issues and priorities. The webinars will 

include remarks from U.S. DOT Secretary Elaine L. Chao, FHWA’s Administrator Nicole R. Nason and 

NHTSA’s Deputy Administrator James C. Owens in addition to guest speakers from leading transportation 

safety organizations. 

Webinar 2 ‐ Taking Action on Pedestrian Safety – Part 2: Consider Risk: When, Where, Who, How?

July 15, 2020 1:00‐2:30 p.m. EDT

													Agenda Item Speaker 

Welcome and Introductions Cheryl Walker, Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) 

Jamie Pfister, Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and 

Program Delivery, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) 

Facilitated Session Mike Griffith, FHWA, Lead Facilitator 

Guest Speakers		

» Laura Sandt, Director, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

(PBIC)

» David Yang, Executive Director, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

(AAAFTS)

» Corinne Kisner, Executive Director, National Association of City

Transportation Officials (NATCO)

» Ian Thomas, Director, State and Local Program, America Walks

» Anne Marie Doherty, Senior Director, Research, Implementation

and Safety, New York City Department of Transportation (NYC

DOT)

» Brad Sant, Senior Vice President, Safety and Education, American

Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)

Polling Questions Mike Griffith, FHWA 

Preview Next Webinar 

and Adjourn 

Cheryl Walker, FHWA 

Note: Two videos will be played

Highway Research Center

from NHTSA and the Turner‐Fairbank
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 974 V

Filed: April 6, 2015

Not for P ublication

*************************************

JAMES BERGERON, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act s

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Alison H. Haskins , Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.

Gordon E. Shemin , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On April 3, 2015 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact s in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with General Order #9 , petitioner assert s that he did not incur any costs in

pursuit of hi s petition. Petitioner submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and costs to

respondent. During informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certain aspects of

petitioner’ s application

. Based on these objections, petitioner amend s his applicat ion for

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special master s will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of priva cy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

attor ne ys’ fees and costs to $17,299.24

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 17,299.24

, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a

chec k payable jointly to petitioner and Maglio, Christopher & Toale, P.A . for $ 17,299.24

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment he rewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### Ex parte Gary Ernell DENSON.

SC 2767.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 26, 1977.

BEATTY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER and SHORES, JJ., concur.
258 La. 351

#### Purvis MILNER v. La Vonne Marie Smith MILNER.

No. 51294.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 14, 1971.

In re: La Vonne Marie Smith Milner applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo., 244 So.2d 716.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-166-008]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 29, 1997, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing the revised tariff sheets 
listed on Appendix A to the filing in compliance with the Commission's 
directive in its Letter Order dated June 11, 1997 at RP97-166-003 and 
Order dated May 14, 1997 at RP97-166-001, 002. These tariff sheets 
implement the Gas Industry Standards Board's standards adopted by the 
Commission in Order No. 587-C. Columbia Gulf proposes an effective date 
of November 1, 1997 for the tariff sheets.
    Columbia Gulf states that copies of its filings have been mailed to 
all of its customers, affected State Regulatory commissions, and all 
parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing, should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be made as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but such protests will not serve to make protestants parties 
to this proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26596 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
258 La. 1018

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles P. JAMES.

No. 50874.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1971.

Norman M. Magee, Ferriday, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. C. Falkenheiner, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

SUMMERS, Justice.

Charles P. James was indicted by the Grand Jury of Concordia Parish on two counts of aggravated criminal damage to property. After trial the jury returned a verdict on both counts of guilty of simple damage to property. James was sentenced under count one to pay a fine of $500 and be confined to the parish jail for 60 days, and, in default of the payment of the fine, an additional 60 days imprisonment. Under count two he was sentenced to the state penitentiary at hard labor for two years, the sentence being suspended and James was placed on two years active probation. The matter is now before us on appeal.

No bills of exceptions were timely perfected, and, because of this, there is nothing for review, except errors patent on the face of the record. We find no errors patent on the face of the record. La.Code Crim.P. arts. 844, 920.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Steven H. Davis, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this amended annual report of CET Services, 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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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
small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April 21, 2006



/s/ Steven H. Davis
Steven H. Davis
Chief Executive Officer
#### Robert CRONAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ALLEN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 5943.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 16, 1977.

Ryder & Deshotels by Errol D. Deshotels, Oberlin, for defendant and appellant.

D. Michael Mooney, Lake Charles, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, WATSON, FORET and STOKER, JJ.

STOKER, Judge. '

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal with several suits one of which is *Young v. Allen Parish School Board,*349 So.2d 469, which is being decided on this date.

For the reasons which we assigned in *Young v. Allen Parish School Board,*supra, we take the following action in this case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court insofar as it renders judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Robert Cronan, against Allen Parish School Board and assesses court costs to the latter. However, the one judgment rendered and signed for all of the plaintiffs in the consolidated case (described in *Young v. Allen Parish School Board,*supra) granted the same form of decree to each plaintiff and ordered the total amount of salary to be paid for the year 1975-76, rather than awarding the difference in what was actually received and what should have been paid. The portion of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this suit, Robert Cronan, reads: “IT IS STILL FUR*478THER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of plaintiff, Robert Cronan and against the Allen Parish School Board, ordering the Allen Parish School Board to pay unto Robert Cronan the salary of Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty ($11,680.00 and No/100 Dollars for the 1975-76 school term together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand; . .

For the reasons given in the *Young*case we amend the trial court judgment with respect to the award. Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment herein in favor of plaintiff, Robert Cronan, and against the Allen Parish School Board in the full sum of Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty ($11,680.00) and No/100 Dollars, subject to a credit for all sums paid Robert Cronan as salary by defendant during the 1975-76 school term for Allen Parish, together with legal interest from date of judicial demand on the net amount due under this judgment, all costs of these proceedings in the trial court to be assessed against defendant, Allen Parish School Board, insofar as defendant may be legally cast for such costs.

All costs of this appeal are assessed to defendant-appellant insofar as it may be legally cast for such costs.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

CULPEPPER J., dissents and assigns written reasons in 5919.

HOOD, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by CULPEPPER, J.