alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

ME-06 Marsh Walk Harbor Road Bicycle & Pedestrian 

Amenities

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Rachel Carson 

National Wildlife Refuge

Town of Wells York 2017

ME-07 East B Hill Road Resurfacing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Umbagog 

National Wildlife Refuge

Town of Upton Oxford 2018

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Maine Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Maine FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

Maine Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2015-2018

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. The Maine PDC does not have a firm date for the next 

Call for Projects under the Access Program, but another call is anticipated within the next year. 

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
#### Jerry K. PETTERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1203.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 7, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was placed on probation as a result of the trial court having reconsidered his prison sentence which had been imposed at a prior term of court. In his appeal from revocation of that probation we hold that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence. Consequently the probation and revocation thereof were nullities. We reverse.

After appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of felonious possession of a firearm, the trial court adjudged him guilty and, on July 3, 1973, placed him on probation for five years. Exactly one year later, after he pled guilty to violating the conditions of his probation, the court sentenced appellant to prison for an indeterminate term of six months to three years. Thereafter, on June 24, 1975, the trial court, on appellant’s petition for reconsideration, vacated that judgment and sentence and placed him on probation for three years. This latter probation was revoked on June 30, 1976, at which time the trial court sentenced appellant to six years in prison with credit for the 182 days served in county jail. This appeal is taken from this last revocation of probation.

At the time the trial court reduced appellant’s sentence, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800 allowed a court to modify a sentence only during the same term at which it was im*559posed or within sixty days after sentence if less than sixty days remained in the term.1 After this time elapsed the sentencing court had no further control except to enforce the sentence it had previously imposed. There are two terms of the circuit court in Pinel-las County. The spring term commences on the first Monday in May; the fall term on the first Monday in December. Section 26.-27, Florida Statutes (1975). The order placing appellant on probation on June 24,1975, was entered beyond the permitted time limit and was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction. *Solomon v. State,*341 So.2d 537 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The modification of appellant’s sentence having been void, it follows that the placing of appellant on probation and the revocation thereof were nullities.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed, and the indeterminate sentence of six months to three years imposed on July 3, 1974, is reinstated. The trial court is directed to allow credit for all time served as a result of the offense for which appellant has been sentenced.

Reversed and remanded.

OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.

1

. On March 3, 1977, the Florida Supreme Court amended Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800 to read, “A court may reduce a legal sentence imposed by it within sixty days after such imposition . removing all language referring to terms of court. The Florida Bar (Re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure), 343 So.2d 1247 (Fla.1977).
Order entered June 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01394-CV

SUNNY LETOT, Appellant

V.

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-00156-E

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s June 1, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a 

reply brief. Appellant shall file a reply brief by JUNE 9, 2015. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3755 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3755

**Commission Decision of 19/04/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3755 - NORDIC CAPITAL / NYCOMED) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 19.04.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/201855

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M . 3755 - NORDIC CAPITAL / NYCOMED

Notification of 14.3.2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[1]

Publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 70, 22.03.2005, page 13.

1. On 14.3.2005 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Nordic Capital Fund V (“Nordic Capital V”, Jersey), belonging to the group Nordic Capital, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Nycomed (“Nycomed”, Denmark), currently jointly controlled by the Credit Suisse Group (“CSG”) and the Blackstone Group, by way of purchase of shares. CSG will retain joint control over Nycomed.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for undertaking “Nordic Capital V”: private equity fund

- for undertaking “CSG”: global financial services group

- for undertaking “Nycomed” : manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph b, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission,

(signed)

Neelie Kroes Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1.

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32.

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
OVER

2007

Using Medicines 

Wisely

Today we have many medicines 

to choose from. Medicine can 

help you, but no drug is totally 

safe. There are things you can do 

to lower your chances of having 

problems and make sure your 

medicine works the best it can.

Ask questions

• Why am I using this medicine?

• How long should I use it?

• When should I start to feel better?

• What problems should I watch 

for?

• What should I do if I have 

problems or side effects?

• When should I use this medicine?

• Should I take it on an empty 

stomach or with food?

• Is it safe to drink alcohol with it?

• What should I do if I forget to use 

it?

Know the medicine

• What is the brand name? Does the 

drug have any other names?

• What does the drug look like? 

Look at the color, shape, and 

package. If it looks different next 

time, ask why. It could be the 

wrong medicine.

Read the label

• Find out what is in the drug. Do 

not use the medicine if you are 

allergic to anything in it. Ask your 

doctor, nurse, or pharmacist about 

changing your medicine.

• Don’t use two drugs with the 

same or similar ingredients.

• Don’t use two drugs for the same 

problem unless your doctor, nurse, 

or pharmacist suggests it.

• Read the warnings carefully.

Follow directions

• Do not skip taking your medicines.

• Don’t take more than the 

suggested dose.

• Do not share medicines.

• Do not take medicine in the dark. 

It’s too easy to make a mistake.

Keep a list of all the medicines 

you use

• List all of your prescription 

medicines.

• List any over-the-counter 

medicines you use.

• List any vitamins, minerals, herbs, 

amino acids, and other products 

you use.

• Carry the list with you to show 

your doctor, nurse, or pharmacist.
How do you feel?

• If you are not feeling better, 

or start to feel worse, call your 

doctor or clinic. You might need 

a different medicine or a different 

dose.

For a free copy of a brochure with a 

place to list your medicines, 

call 1-888-878-3256.

To Learn More:

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

http://www.fda.gov

Phone: 1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332)

Using Medicines 

Wisely

FDA Office of Women’s Health http://www.fda.gov/womens

TAKE TIME TO CARE... For yourself, for those who need you.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55406-55407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28236]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request Entitled Preparation, 
Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to 
an existing OMB clearance (3090-0252).

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

SUMMARY: The GSA hereby gives notice under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 that it is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
to reinstate information collection, 3090-0252, Preparation, 
Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans. This information 
collection will ensure that small and small disadvantaged business 
concerns are afforded the maximum practical opportunity to participate 
as subcontractors in

[[Page 55407]]

construction, repair, and alteration or lease contracts.

DATES: December 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Edward Springer, GSA Desk Officer, Room 
3235, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and to Marjorie Ashby, General 
Services Administration (MVP), 18th and F Streets, NW, Washington, DC 
20405.
    Annual Reporting Burden: Respondents: 1350; annual responses: 1; 
average hours per response: 12; burden hours: 16,200.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Matera, Office of GSA Acquisition 
Policy (202) 501-1224.
    Copy of Proposal: A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the 
GSA Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4011, GSA Building, 18th 
and F Streets NW, Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-
3822, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-3341.

    Dated: October 15, 1997.
Edward C. Loeb,
Acting Deputy Association Administrator, Office of Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 97-28236 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-M
Exhibit 10.1








Written Summary of
Executive Incentive Compensation Plan
for Named Executive Officers





Each of Mr. Perisano, Ms. Dionne, and Mr. Robertson participates in the executive incentive compensation plan and is eligible to receive a bonus for 2010 of up to 20% of base salary if certain objective performance metrics are met, with a target bonus of 8% of base salary. Under the executive compensation plan, the performance metrics are weighted as follows: 25% of the bonus is dependent upon achievement of certain levels of growth in comparable store sales over 2009 levels, 25% of the bonus upon the achievement of certain levels of total sales and 50% of the bonus upon the achievement of certain levels of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). If the Company does not achieve a minimum level of performance for the particular metric, the named executive officer would not be eligible to receive a bonus amount with respect to that metric under the Plan.
#### Homer C. KIRK and Peggy A. Kirk, his wife, Appellants, v. Fred VALLETTE and Dorothy R. Jackson, Appellees.

No. 72-796.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00503-CV

CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C., Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., Jamestown 

Resources, L.L.C., and OOGC American LLC,

Appellants

v.

7K INVESTMENTS, LTD., et al.,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-03-00030-CVL

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 9, 2021

VACATED AND REMANDED

On June 29, 2020, appellants filed a notice with this court stating appellants were in 

bankruptcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8. This appeal and all time periods were accordingly stayed from 

the date the bankruptcy petition was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. This court subsequently issued 

an order abating this appeal. For administrative purposes, this case was treated as a closed case, 

unless and until it is reinstated in accordance with Rule 8.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.
04-19-00503-CV

- 2 -

On May 26, 2021, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Vacate Judgment and Remand 

Pursuant to Settlement” moving this court to set aside the district court’s “Corrected Final 

Judgment” without regard to the merits and remand the case to the district court to dismiss the 

claims pursuant to the parties’ settlement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

We order this appeal REINSTATED, and the motion is GRANTED. We VACATE the 

district court’s “Corrected Final Judgment” without regard to its merits and REMAND this case 

to the district court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. 

See id. Because the motion does not indicate that the parties agreed otherwise, costs are taxed 

against the appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.15 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Instrument Amending the 

Treaty of October 1, 1996 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and LUXEMBOURG 

Signed at Washington February 1, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 LUXEMBOURG 

 Extradition 

Instrument amending the treaty of October 1, 1996. 

Signed at Washington February 1, 2005; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-14, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-12, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification at Washington 

 April 24, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 




NOTE: Instrument signed February 1, 2005.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27845]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA079-5020b; FRL-5910-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Commonwealth of Virginia, General Conformity Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of 
establishing the requirements for determining conformity of general 
federal actions to applicable air quality implementation plans (General 
Conformity). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA 
is approving the Commonwealth's SIP revisions as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because the Agency views them as 
noncontroversial SIP revisions and anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed 
rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If 
EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn 
and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent 
final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by November 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO & 
Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection during normal business hours at the EPA office 
listed above; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 566-2182, at the 
EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action of the same title (Virginia General Conformity Rule) which 
is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal 
Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: September 29, 1997.
Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 97-27845 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0120 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DALE NEWBURY,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 1 , 20 2 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2021

07/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0120
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2009 - Present KS Motor Vehicle Accident Report Coding 

Manual 2014

D – Disabled (incapacitating) A

D: any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities he/she was capable of performing before the 

injury occurred. Includes severe lacerations, broken or distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries, unconsciousness at or when taken from the accident scene, or inability to 

leave the accident scene without assistance.

Injury Severity code & definition found on Manual 

pg45 (PDF pg49).

Suspected Serious Injury 2005 - 2008 KS Motor Vehicle Accident Report 2005

D - Disabled - incapacitating A codes found on pg6 (Coding List)

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE STATE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2009 - Present

KS Motor Vehicle Accident Report Coding 

Manual 2014,

KS Motor Vehicle Accident Report 2009

Walking, standing, running, 

etc.

21

Pedestrians (Peds) in the general sense refer to persons who are not occupants of motor 

vehicles in transport (except “working vehicle” drivers). Peds are considered “traffic units” 

and are typically listed after motor vehicles in-transport as 02, 03, etc. Inclusions: persons 

walking, jogging, playing, or pedal cyclists, riders of animals, occupants of animal-drawn 

vehicles, occupants of a vehicle NOT IN-TRANSPORT (legally parked), “working vehicle” 

drivers, and machine operators when such machine is used for its intended purpose. 

Example: While mowing along a road, a mowing machine is struck, thus the driver is 

considered a Ped (type 26).

Pedestrian Types (non-motorist)

code found on Manual pg72, Code 

Sheet pg2 (Manual PDF 

pg76,211) ,Note found on Manual 

pg11 (PDF pg15) .

Other 88 Pedestrian Types (non-motorist)

Pedalcyclist 2009 - Present

Pedal cyclist 22

DO NOT record pedal cycles (i.e. a bicycle) as vehicles. The pedal cyclist (operator) is a 

pedestrian traffic unit. A pedal cyclist is a Ped type 22. Do not record identification or 

description of pedal cycles in the vehicle area (back of 850B) because "VEHICLE" on the form 

means "motor vehicle." Record information of damaged pedal cycles, when needed, in the 

'Object damaged and nature of damage' block (front of 850A) or in the narrative (851). 

Pedestrian Types (non-motorist)

code found on Report Form pg12, 

Manual pg72, Code Sheet pg2 

(Manual PDF pg76,211),Note found 

on Manual pg11 (PDF pg15)

Kansas