alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A college completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 25 

and over with a bachelor’s degree or more. The map uses natural 

breaks in the distribution to organize the data into groups of 

common values. 

College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2009–2013

(County Rates)

Map Created: March 2015

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2009–2013

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

5.6% - 13.6%

13.7% - 19.9%

20.0% - 30.5%

30.6% - 49.3%

U.S. average = 28.8%

Appalachian average = 21.7%

Completion Rate 

(Natural Breaks Classification)
**UNITED STATES**  **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY REGION**  **IX**

**Pat Smith,**  **Assistant Library**  **Director Monticello**  **Library 80** **North Main**  **Street Monticello,**  **UT 84535**  **75 Hawthorne**  **Street San**  **Francisco, CA**  **94105 September**  **30, 2016** 

**Subject: Request**  **to retain**  **public documents**  **at the**  **Monticello Library**  **for public** 

**inspection The**  **purpose of** **this letter**  **is to**  **request that**  **the Monticello**  **Library retain**  **the enclosed** **package at**  **the library**  **for at**  **least sixty**  **(60) days for**  **public inspection.**  **The package**  **consists of** **documents related**  **to the**  **United States**  **Environmental Protection**  **Agency's final**  **decision on**  **the Clean**  **Air Act**  **Prevention of**  **Significant Deterioration**  **amendment permit**  **for the**  **McElmo Creek**  **Unit Oil**  **Production Facility**  **on the**  **Navajo Nation** **Indian Reservation near**  **the city**  **of Aneth,**  **San Juan**  **County, Utah. We**  **would greatly**  **appreciate your**  **assistance for** **making these**  **documents available**  **to the**  **general public.**  **Please contact**  **me at**  **(415) 947-4156**  **or r9airpermits@epa.gov** **if you**  **have any**  **questions.**

**Enclosure** 

# ;;�

**Shaheerah Kelly**  **Environmental Engineer**  **Permits Office,**  **Air Division**
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. GWEN MOORE

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 14, 2012

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for one vote in the House of 
Representatives on Thursday afternoon (September 13).
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 575--
H.R. 1775--Stolen Valor Act of 2011.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     THE WIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT

  (Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Sustainable 
Energy and Environment Coalition to talk about a critical issue for 
Massachusetts and our Nation: the wind protection tax credit.
  Providing a modest credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour generated, 
it has encouraged over $75 billion in private investment over the last 
5 years. Now 60 percent of the average turbine is manufactured here in 
the United States. These companies hire a diversity of workers and 
provide good-paying jobs in a rapidly growing sector of our economy.
  Bay Stater Nigel Greene worked for GE Wind as a wind farm parts 
runner. He says:

       I can tell you honestly that nothing gave me more pride in 
     my country than seeing a turbine go from ``in-repair'' status 
     back to ``on-line'' and producing clean, renewable power. It 
     is truly a sight to behold.

  Last year alone, clean energy jobs in Massachusetts grew 11 percent. 
If it is allowed to expire, we will lose an important new manufacturing 
opportunity and too many good-paying American jobs.

                          ____________________
```
**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 Beard Company’s (the “Company”) Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William M. Beard, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 my knowledge:

| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                  |                                                                                                           |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  April 15, 2009 | By:  /s/ William M. Beard

William M. BeardChairman of the Board and    Chief Executive Officer |
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1846-11

VICTOR MARTINEZ GARCIA, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Discretionary Review of Case 13-10-00284-CR 

of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals,

San Patricio County

WOMACK, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Keller, P.J., joined.

Judge Johnson’s concurring opinion (post) points out that, by not executing the warrant of

arrest from the appellant’s other judgment of conviction, the State prevented the appellant from

earning credit toward the sentence in that other case at the same time he was serving a sentence

that was imposed earlier. As a result, he “will remain in the Texas prison system, at state expense, two years longer than he would have if the warrant had been executed promptly, a detainer
2

placed on him, and [a] hearing held on the motion to revoke.” This she regards as a “disrupt[ion],

by negligence or design, [of] the orderly workings of the justice system.” Post, at 2.

Well, no.

There is nothing disorderly in a defendant, who was convicted of two offenses, serving

two sentences. The decision whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively is one of the

orderly workings of the justice system. Prosecutors and judges make them every day in every

case in which a defendant has committed multiple offenses that are within the jurisdiction of the

court. They have to decide how to allocate limited resources that are provided for the probation

and incarceration of criminal offenders

So far as the record before us shows, the judge and the prosecutors have used, in a proper

way, procedures that have resulted in a defendant serving two sentences for two crimes of which

he was convicted. The only thing that was disrupted was the appellant’s hope of being punished

only once for his two crimes.

I join the judgment and opinion of the Court.

Filed December 12, 2012.

Publish.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10286

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY HARRISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-136-A

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Harrison appeals the sentence imposed following

entry of his guilty plea to a superseding indictment charging him

with distribution of cocaine base. Harrison contends that the

district court erred in refusing to sentence him under U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2. Because application of that section requires a finding

that no weapon was possessed in connection with the offense and

because the district court did not clearly err in determining

that Harrison had possessed a firearm in connection with the
No. 97-10286

-2-

offense, we hold that the district court properly refused to

sentence Harrison under the safety-valve provision of § 5C1.2. 

See United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 178-79 (5th Cir. 1996),

cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997); see also Wright v. United

States, 113 F.3d 133, 135 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Harrison also argues that the district court erred in

refusing to depart downward from the guideline imprisonment range

because of Harrison’s youth and family responsibilities. “The

imposition of a lawful sentence coupled with the decision not to

depart from the guidelines provides no ground for relief.” 

United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995). This

court lacks jurisdiction to review a defendant’s challenge to his

sentence based on mere dissatisfaction with the court’s refusal

to grant a downward departure, unless the court’s refusal was the

result of a violation of law or a misapplication of the

Guidelines. Id. A refusal to depart is a violation of law if

the court mistakenly assumed that it lacked the authority to

depart. United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.

1994). Because there is no indication that the district court

misapprehended its authority to reduce Harrison’s sentence, the

district court’s refusal to grant the motion for downward

departure is not reviewable by this court. The sentence is 

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Elder Abuse & ADRD.                    

*Date:*                         January 25, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 22, 2023.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28676 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Docket No: FAA-2015-8469 Dir ID: 2014-NM-105-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 5/21/14

Regional Airline Association 5/21/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 5/21/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 5/21/14
# C_2008272EN.01003801.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/38

---

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo and Others v Commission

(Case T-328/08)

(2008/C 272/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo Soc. coop. (Vibo Valentia, Italy), De Leonardo (Vibo Valentia, Italy), Finelli (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c

Commission

---
# C_2008092EN.01003801.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/38

---

Appeal brought on 5 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06, Carpi Badía v Commission

Carpi Badía

Commission

(Case T-52/08 P)

(2008/C 92/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: José María Carpi Badía (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06 Carpi Badía v Commission and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06 Carpi Badía v Commission and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

Carpi Badía

Commission

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06 Carpi Badía v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled its decision allocating to the applicant at first instance a number of priority points insufficient for him to be promoted in promotion year 2005 and its decision finalising the list of officials promoted during that promotion year inasmuch as it does not include the applicant's name.

Carpi Badía

Commission

In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in law seeking annulment identical to those raised in Case T-51/08 P Commission v Dittert.

Commission

Dittert

---
s R. Wedeking

Sidley Austin LLP

1501 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Thomas Woodworth

NV Energy

6226 West Sahara Avenue

Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

Dear Mr. Boxerman, Ms. Jones, Mr. Wedeking, and Mr. Woodworth:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has considered the petition you submitted on October 19, 2012, asking the agency to reconsider a single provision in our final rule related to the compliance date for the Best Available Retrofit Technology determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station, published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2012, entitled, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station,” (77 FR 50936). As indicated in your petition, EPA proposed, on April 12, 2012, to require compliance within five years from promulgation ofthe final rule with emission limits for nitrogen oxides established as BART (77 FR 21896). Based on comments we received during the public comment period, EPA’s final rule required compliance with BART emission limits by January 1, 2015.

Pursuant to Clean Air Action section 307(d)(7)(B), EPA is granting reconsideration ofthe compliance date in the final rule in order to allow for public comment on the issue raised in your petition. Accordingly, today, the Acting Administrator has signed a notice of proposed rulemaking that will he published in the Federal Register addressing the date by which Units 1, 2, and 3 at Reid Gardner Generating Station must comply with emission limits for NO established as BART.

If you have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contact Ann Lyons at (415) 972-3883 or Matthew Marks at (202) 564-3276. We thank you for your continued interest in this rule and look forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process.

Sincerely,

Jared Blumenfei

Pnned on Retyckd Paper
thaornble it. C. Shgb, Jr., Page 3 

We bmw pte~Iow1~ pint414 out th8t in Qpiulcbn O-1491, 

tbh dsprtment ImId tbt tha Csttificata of Title Act, hrttcle 1636-i. 

Vwmta% Anotated Pamal Code, mpetre4es Artkl8r 1434 and 1435 

at Venom’s AanoWe4 Peaal Cede, lm*mach a* tb Ceriifiutr ol 

Tith Act eomro the ume pneral aobJect matter. ~Wowa’ccr. l VMII 

if th iws er e net tr ue l d qe wotb compeued to Ioek to Atucla 1434, 

Vernoa% AanoInted prlul Code, for tha aanrw te your qtwrtim, th 

toMIt rod4 be the rime. ArtAUk I4f4 uhe secuan 60 of Arude 

1436-l pto*id6a tbditrpplka to kay1#&4ot ~eoad-M*rlJrb 

tequhd to ba togist8t.d amlet tb iews d Ma Stat.“. AI bsfmn 

dntad, the wh&k la qo8rucm operated dcag the hlghwaye af thin 

State by nea-rwid8ata em an oce~lciamal trip lnta this State ls not 

teqaltd to be tr@abted or ikenaed. 

Cauequemtly, we hotd, aad you ate tespetfully advlae4, that nelth*t Articles l434 -- 1435, Vornm*o AnaotMed Peral 

co&r, not Article 1436-1. Vemodr Aanotmtad Penal Code, applies 

to a aoa-rO*ldOnt on an 8ee*rrlosnl trip late thir State under tlm facte 

rot forth In ymr Iotter. 

Tows very truly 

ATTORNEY GKNERAL OF TEXAS 

l /Waltct 0. Moth 

Waet R. Koch 

Aui8tMt 

APPRQVE13 APR A, 1940 

&WaId C. MWUI 

ATTORXEY GiElUEltAL OF TKXAS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices 

# Order

M ay 10 , 2019

159 153

- 4 ( 6 1 )

VIRGINIA PARK SUBDIVISION

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

CAROL D. HAIR, SEAN JACQUES, TALIA

SAFARO, ROK IVEZAJ, MARIA IVEZAJ,

LUIGI DEDA, AFERDITA DEDA,

CHRISTOPHER D. YEZBICK, KIMBERLY I.

YEZBICK, GEORGE IVEZAJ, JAMIE IVEZAJ,

DAREN L. REED, JOYCE A. PILLSBURY,

DAVID J. LUCCHETTI, MARK MATKOVICH,

MARILYN E. MILLS, RUSSELL A.

McCLELLAND, KARINE McCLELLAND,

GREGORY C. COLEY , NAOMI COLEY,

JOSHUA P. CRESWELL, GAIL CRESWELL,

MICHAEL W. MAURER, EDWARD H.

GILBERT, and FLORIN C. MOLDOVAN,

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants

Appellees,

SC: 159153

v COA: 339762

Oakland CC: 2017

- 157802

- CH

PASCAL BROWN and MEGA MANAGEMENT

GROUP,

De fendants,

and

JOANNE BROWN also known as JOANNE

GAINES, KATIE STILL, and BLAIR STILL,

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs

Appellants,

and

JULIAN C. URSING and KIMBERLY D.

URSING,

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs.

________________________________________________________2

VIRGINIA PARK SUBDIVISION

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

CAROL D. HAIR, SEAN JACQUES, TALIA

SAFARO, ROK IVEZAJ, MARIA IVEZAJ,

LUIGI DEDA, AFERDITA DEDA,

CHRISTOPHER D. YEZBICK, KIMBERLY I.

YEZBICK, GEORGE IVEZAJ, JAMIE IVEZAJ,

DAREN L. REED, JOYCE A. PILLSBURY,

DAVID J. LUCCHETTI, MARK MATKOVICH,

MARILYN E. MILLS, RUSSELL A.

McCLELLAND, KARINE McCLELLAND,

GREGORY C. COLEY, NAOMI COLEY,

JOSHUA P. CRESWELL, GAIL CRESWELL,

MICHAEL W. MAURER, E DWARD H.

GILBERT, and FLORIN C. MOLDOVAN,

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants

Appellees,

SC: 159154

v COA: 339808

Oakland CC: 2017

- 157802

- CH

PASCAL BROWN and MEGA MANAGEMENT

GROUP,

Defendants,

and

JOANNE BROWN also known as JOANNE

GAINES, KATIE STILL, and BLAIR STILL,

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs,

and

JULIAN C. URSING and KIMBERLY D.

URSING,

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs

Appellants.

__________________________________ ________ ___/I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

M ay 10 , 2019 3

Clerk On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan W aterfront Alliance to

file a brief amicus curiae in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED.

The amicus brief submitted on M ay 9 , 2019 , is accepted for filing

.