alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AMANDA L. SCHIBERL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 04-239 Erie

v. )

)

JOANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff’s social security complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on August

24, 2004, 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 [Doc. No. 10], filed on

August 31, 2005, recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.

No. 6] be granted, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 8] be

denied, and that the matter be remanded to the Social Security Administration for

further proceedings. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to

file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendant. 

Defendant has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and

Recommendation. After de novo review of the documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2005;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.

No. 6] is GRANTED, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 8]

is DENIED; it is further ORDERED that the matter is hereby REMANDED to the Social

Security Administration for further proceedings. 

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 31, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:04-cv-00239-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
#### John C. RILEY, Jr., Appellant, v. Alfred GUSTINGER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 70-485.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1971.

Stanley Haves, Miami, for appellant.

Alfred Gustinger, Jr., and Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Rule 1.530(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.
#### Kevin Wayne HERBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Harold BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 52428 and 52317.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 5, 1978.

James 0. Brecher of Taylor & Brecher, Jacksonville, for Herbertson.

Louis 0. Frost, Jr., Public Defender and William P. White, III, Asst. Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Byrd, appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Soverino v. State,*356 So.2d 269 (Fla.1978).

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and KARL, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]


                           RESOURCE SHARING AGREEMENT
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1


      This Amendment No. 1 to the Resource Sharing Agreement (this Amendment")
is made as of April 7, 2000 (the "Amendment Effective Date") by and between
AppliedTheory Corporation, formerly NYSERNet.com ("AppliedTheory") and
NYSERNet.org ("NYSERNet").


                                   BACKGROUND

      This Amendment is made with reference to the following facts:

      A.    NYSERNet and AppliedTheory are parties to that certain Resource
            Sharing Agreement dated as of October 1, 1996 (the "Agreement").

      B.    The parties desire to extend the termination date of the Agreement
            as set forth below.


                               TERMS OF AMENDMENT

      Accordingly, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the
parties hereby agree as follows:

      1.    The termination date of the Agreement is extended from December 31,
            1999 to December 31, 2000.

      2.    All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full
            force and effect.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                   <C>
       APPLIEDTHEORY CORPORATION                      NYSERNET.ORG

       By:  /s/ Angelo Gencarelli                     By:  /s/ Dr. Timothy Lance

       Name: Angelo Gencarelli                        Name: Dr. Timothy Lance

       Title: Vice President Business Integration     Title: President

       Date: 4/17/2000                                Date: 4/13/2000
</TABLE>
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.34    
  



	[AUGUST TECHNOLOGY GRAPHIC]	 	4900 West 78th Street

Bloomington, MN 55435 USA	 	Tel: 952-820-0080

Fax: 952-820-0060	 	www.AugustTech.com

info@augusttech.com





Mr. Richard
Smith                                18 December 2002

Firfax Systems Limited

Meteor Business Park

Gloucestershire Airport

Cheltenham Road East

Gloucester, England

GL2 9QL UK 


Dear
Richard, 


August
Technology has appreciated the service provided by Firfax over the years as our distributor for Europe. But as the industry becomes more Asia focused and August Technology grows as a company,
we find it best for August Technology to pursue the direct sales and service model in the UK, Ireland, Benelux and Scandanavia. 



As
such, August Technology is terminating our International Sales Distributor Agreement with Firfax Systems Ltd., dated 3 September 1996, to be effective 31 December 2002. I do
not believe you find this a surprise, as you yourself have admitted that more and more companies are doing technology
development in Europe and volume manufacturing in Asia. This business fact does not fit well with the distributor model of sales and service. 


Richard,
we thank you and your entire organization for their support over the years. We truly wish you and your team all the best in your future endeavors. 



We
would like to wrap up all outstanding receivables, on both sides by the end of the year as well as to develop a plan on how to inform your customers at this time. I am asking Paul Hayes to work
with you and your team to finalize this plan. 


Again,
we thank you for your support. 


Best
respects, 


Mayson
Brooks

Vice President

Worldwide Sales and Field Operations

August Technology

4900 West 78th Street

Bloomington, MN 55435 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.34
### Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 an d Congressiona l Revie w Requirement s Rulemakin g Documen t

Title : 

# / (H (rco0

^ ^ , u^i A RIN : ' ' " ' ^ . , i/7 y / 

# >^"^-/fg / Wit hrespec t t o th e attache drulemakin g document(s) : 1 . E.0.12866 : Th e requirement s o f sectio n6(a)(3)(E ) o f

E.O . 1286 6 hav e bee nme t inaccordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appropriat e line] :

____ ^ Th e rulemakin g document(s ) wa s no t reviewe dby th e Offic e o f Informatio n an d Regulator y Affair s (OIRA) . ^^^ ^ N o substantiv e change s wer e mad e t o th e document(s ) after i t wa s submitte dt o OIRA . Th e require dinformatio ni s attached . 2 . CoDgressiona l Review : Th e requirement s o f th e Smal l Busines s Regulatory Enforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t for th e submissio n o f

fmal rule s t o Congres s an dGA O ( § 801 ) hav e bee nme t i naccordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appropriat e line] :

Thi s documen t

i s no t afinal rule .

_Thi s documen t

i s no t arul e unde r

( § 804) . Th e documen t

ha s bee nsubmitte dt o C-5 0 for transmissio nt o Congres s an dGAO .

Nam e / N, /

, ^ Title/Offic e / Dat e
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 60187 Summary Calendar

**____________ Alma Sofia Centeno** 

**- Santiago,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus **Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

**______________________________** Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A098 487 880

**_______________________ _______**  Before **Barksdale, Engelhardt,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Alma Sofia Centeno

- Santiago, a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the i mmigration j udge ’s denial of her 2019 motion to reopen , which sought rescission of the 20 0 4 removal order entered against her in absentia

.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 27, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60187 Document: 00516980016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023No. 23

- 60187

2 M otions to reopen are “disfavored” ; review is “under a highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard”

. Mauricio

- Benitez v. Sessions , 908 F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Under this standard, o ur court will affirm unless the agency’s decision is “capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach”

. Id

. (citation omitted). Review of the BIA’s factual findings is for substantial evidence ; the findings

are overturned only “if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”

. Id

. T he record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA ’s on whether Centeno fulfilled her obligation to keep the i mmigration c ourt apprised of her current address. E.g. , id. ; 8 U.S.C. § 1229 a(b)(5)( B) ( “No written notice shall be required under subparagraph (A) if the alien has failed to provide the address required . . . .”)

. S he , therefore, forfeited her right to notice of her hearing, and the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen was not arbitrary. See Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland , 70 F.4th 232, 2 4 3 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[A]n alien [can] forfeit [her] right to notice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B), regardless of whether the [notice to appear] contained the hearing time and place, if the alien failed to prov ide the immigration court with a mailing address at which [she] could be notified”.)

. Because she forfeited her right to notice by failing to update her mailing address, her other contentions have no bearing on the BIA’s denying her motion to reopen

. **DEN IED** 

. Case: 23-60187 Document: 00516980016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
FHWA encourages implementation of projects and programs 

that improve safety, equity, and accessibility for all road users. 

Take the first step toward exploring federal funding opportunities 

for your Complete Streets Network.

FUNDING SAFETY FOR ALL.

FHWA-SA-23-011 Source: FHWA

SEPTEMBER 2023

Federal Transit Administration Grant

Programs

National Highway Performance Program

Surface Transportation Block Grant

Program

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation

Program

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement Program

Bridge Investment Program

Transportation Alternatives

Carbon Reduction Program

Tribal Transportation Program

Metropolitan Planning Funds

PROTECT

Railway-Highway Crossing Program

Statewide Planning and Research

Recreational Trails Program

Bridge Formula Program

Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement

Financing

TIFIA Program

Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation

Programs

Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund

ATTAIN

RAISE Discretionary Grants

INFRA Grants

Safe Streets and Roads for All Grants

Transit Oriented Development

Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program

Areas of Persistent Poverty Program

National Scenic Byways Program

Active Transportation Infrastructure

Investment Program

Interested in learning more? Visit the FHWA Complete Streets Funding site: 

https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets/make-complete-streets-default-approach. 

In addition to funding, FHWA provides guidance, technical assistance, and other 

resources to improve safety in projects, policies, and procedures.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

p0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142968

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142968 COA: 294564 Oakland CC: 2008-094346-CH FIFTH THIRD BANK, Defendant-Appellee,

and

KIMBERTLY A. JONE S, SHERYL C. JONES and FLAGSTAR BANK, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
#### BURDA METALS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. HEAVY EQUIPMENT RENTAL COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Herco, Appellee.

No. 70-471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 12, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1971.

Robert B. Ely, Miami, for appellant.

Frank X. Gliozzo, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Burda Metals, Inc., was one of the defendants in the trial court. This appeal is from a final judgment for the plaintiff, Heavy Equipment Rental *164Company, Inc., entered after a jury verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,915.85 against the appellant, Burda Metals, Inc., and Bernard F. Burda. The action was for the recovery of money claimed to be due upon leases of trucking equipment.

Nine points-on appeal supported by 16 assignments of error are presented. We hold that no reversible error has been shown but that the final judgment against Bernard F. Burda is not supported by the verdict1 and must be reversed.

 Points one, four, and five question evidentiary rulings made during the trial but do not show reversible error. Point two urges that the trial judge should have dismissed the action for failure of the plaintiff to pay its capital stock tax. The record does not reflect a motion to dismiss upon this ground. Babe, Inc. v. Baby’s Formula Service, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 795. Point three questions the sufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the record is sufficient to support the verdict. Points six, seven and eight are not supported by an applicable assignment of error. Point nine urges that attorney’s fees allowed under the contracts were excessive. The record shows that the parties stipulated that the trial judge should set the amount of the fee without submitting testimony. Therefore the right to assert that the fee is excessive was waived in the absence of a gross abuse of discretion. This has not been shown.

The judgment against Burda Metals, Inc., is affirmed, and the judgment against Bernard F. Burda is reversed. The cause is remanded for the entry of a proper judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

1

. “We the Jury find for the Plaintiff against the defendant BURDA MBT-ALS, INC., and assess its damages at $1,916.84. So Say We All.”
EXHIBIT 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

I, Scott C. Hennessy, as President and Chief Executive Officer of True Temper Sports, Inc. (the "Company"), state and certify
that this Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 29, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in this Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 29, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/SCOTT C. HENNESSYScott C. Hennessy President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)August 12, 2008


---



QuickLinks
### 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28on (Mm-1)



### 0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

YELL2 Yellowstone NP Grand Teton NP Teton Wilderness NOAB1 North Absaroka Wilderness Washakie Wilderness BRID1 Bridger Wilderness Fitzpatrick WildernessExtinction (Mm-1)



### Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt Light Extinction by Pollutant Species for Wyoming Class I Areas 20% Worst Days (2000-2004)

Amm. SulfateAmm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt YELL2 Yellowstone NP Grand Teton NP Teton Wilderness 4.26 1.77 13.48 2.48 0.95 2.58 0.02

NOAB1 North Absaroka Wilderness Washakie Wilderness 4.87 1.6 11.64 1.86 0.84 2.91 0.006 BRID1 Bridger Wilderness Fitzpatrick Wilderness 4.99 1.43 10.55 1.99 1.1 2.51 0.04

Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction NO3 Extinction OMC Extinction EC ExtinctionSoil Extinction CM ExtinctionSeaSalt Extinction YELL2 NIA 2000 20 4.16 1.97 18.45 3.65 0.8 2.84 0 YELL2 NIA 2001 22 4.71 2.36 16.11 2.61 1.39 2.69 0 YELL2 NIA 2002 22 3.8 1.63 11.16 1.87 1.21 3.12 0.03 YELL2 NIA 2003 21 4.07 1.43 12.8 2.33 0.44 1.3 0 YELL2 NIA 2004 23 4.57 1.46 8.89 1.94 0.92 2.94 0.07 

### 4.262 1.77 13.482 2.48 0.952 2.578 0.02

Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction NO3 Extinction OMC Extinction EC ExtinctionSoil Extinction CM ExtinctionSeaSalt Extinction NOAB1 NIA 2002 22 5.35 2.26 6.46 1.25 1.02 3.37 0.01 NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 4.67 1.05 20.06 2.94 0.81 2.9 0 NOAB1 NIA 2004 23 4.59 1.5 8.41 1.38 0.7 2.45 0.01 

### 4.871.60333311.643331.8566670.8433332.9066670.006667

Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction NO3 Extinction OMC Extinction EC ExtinctionSoil Extinction CM ExtinctionSeaSalt Extinction BRID1 NIA 2000 22 4.49 1.26 10.29 2.58 0.93 2.52 0 BRID1 NIA 2001 23 5.9 1.5 7.57 1.52 1.54 2.99 0 BRID1 NIA 2002 22 4.32 1.72 13.81 2.4 1.06 2.22 0.04 BRID1 NIA 2003 24 4.93 1.06 14.14 2.07 0.71 2.08 0.05 BRID1 NIA 2004 25 5.32 1.59 6.93 1.36 1.28 2.73 0.09 

### 4.992 1.426 10.548 1.986 1.104 2.508 0.036 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

YELL2 Yellowstone NP Grand Teton NP Teton Wilderness NOAB1 North Absaroka Wilderness Washakie Wilderness BRID1 Bridger Wilderness Fitzpatrick WildernessExtinction (Mm-1)



### Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt
#### Albert D. DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-26.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

Davis appeals the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence made pursuant to Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. A review of the briefs and record on appeal affirmatively shows that the appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




I,
      Albert
      W. Weggeman, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Stamford Industrial Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained
      in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Stamford Industrial Group,
      Inc.




Date:
              August
              11, 2008
            By:
            /s/
              Albert W. Weggeman, Jr.Name:Albert
                W. Weggeman, Jr.
                Title:President
                  and Chief Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, v. Nellie TURNAGE, Respondent.

No. 44583.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 12, 1974.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, TT., concur.
#### Jose DE LA HOZ and Pedro Pino, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Juan R. MILIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 2487, 2524.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Hollywood Entertainment
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Mark J. Wattles                       /s/ Timothy R. Price
-----------------------------             ---------------------------
Mark J. Wattles                           Timothy R. Price
Chairman, President and Chief             Chief Financial Officer
Executive Officer


Dated: April 13, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55399-55400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28233]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5485-5]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information, (202) 564-7167 OR (202) 564-7153.
    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed October 13, 
1997 Through October 17, 1997 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 970401, FINAL EIS, FHW, CA, US 101 Realignment Construction, 
near Cushing Creek from Mile Post 20.3 to 22.3 South of Crescent City, 
Funding and COE Permits, Del Norte County, CA, Due: November 24, 1997, 
Contact: John R. Schultz, (916) 551-1314.
EIS No. 970402, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, EPA, TX, Oak Hill Surface Lignite 
Mine (formerly known as the Martin Lake D Area Mine) Expansion Project 
into the DIII Area, Modification/Reissuance of a New Source NPDES 
Permit, Rusk County, TX, Due: November 24, 1997, Contact: Robert D. 
Lawrence, (214) 665-2258.
EIS No. 970403, FINAL EIS, USN, WA, Puget Sound Naval Station, Sand 
Point, Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, King County, WA,

[[Page 55400]]

Due: November 24, 1997, Contact: Chingmin Cher, (703) 604-1268.
EIS No. 970404, SECOND FINAL SUPPLE, DOE, CA, Petroleum Production at 
Maximum Efficient Rate, Updated Information for the Sale of Naval 
Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (NPR-1 also called ``Elk Hills'') Amendment for 
Kern County General Plan, Elk Hills, Kern County, CA, Due: November 24, 
1997, Contact: Anthony J. Como, (202) 586-5935.

    Dated: October 21, 1997.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 97-28233 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P