alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64666-64667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-810]


Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan: Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of 
administrative review.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202)482-0666.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to

[[Page 64667]]

the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Department's regulations are to the current 
regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

    On February 29, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a request from Komatsu, Ltd. (Komatsu) for an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical transfer presses 
from Japan. On March 30, 2000, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of this administrative review covering the period of 
February 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000 (65 FR 16875).

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

    Because of the complexities enumerated in the Memorandum from 
Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A. Spetrini, Extension of Time Limit for 
the Administrative Review of Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, 
dated October 24, 2000, it is not practicable to complete this review 
within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A), the Department 
is extending the time limits for the preliminary results to February 
28, 2001. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the 
publication of the preliminary results.

    Dated: October 24, 2000.
Edward C. Yang,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 00-27814 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### THOMPSON v. STATE.

No. 25149.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of burglary. The jury found him gfuilty and assessed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The caption found in the transcript herein is deficient in that it does not show the date when the term of court was adjourned. For want of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
Explanatory Note regarding Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Contracts



 Exhibit 10 (nn) 
 Explanatory Note regarding Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Contracts 
 between Humana and CMS

 Recently, various subsidiaries of Humana Inc. and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services entered into two separate contracts that allow Humana
to operate of a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan under Sections 1860D-1 through 1860D-42 of the Social Security Act. 
 The form of contract providing for the
operation of a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan was filed as Exhibit 10.3 to Humana’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, and is hereby incorporated by reference. 
 The following chart summarizes the two individual contracts by type and entity: 
  

			
	 Participating Humana Entity
	  	 Applicable
 Addenda

	Humana Insurance Company	  	10.3
	Humana Insurance Company of New York	  	10.3
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.28

Terayon Communication Systems
4988 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 94054

March 12, 2004


Mr. Mike Reinhart
GE Commercial Finance
10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004


RE:   Aircraft Lease Agreement (the "Agreement") dated February 8, 2002 between
General Electric Capital Corporation ("GECC") and Terayon Communication Systems,
Inc. ("Terayon")

Dear Mike:

Terayon currently leases a 1997 Bombardier Challenger 604 (the "Aircraft") from
GECC under the above referenced Agreement.  Notwithstanding any prior
communications, please be advised that it is now Terayon's intent to either
pursue a sublet of the Aircraft under Section 8 of the Agreement or to exercise
its early termination rights under Section 17 of the Agreement sometime in the
future.  To that end, effective immediately Terayon is listing the Aircraft as
available for sale or lease to the market.  We will keep you apprised of our
progress in these efforts.


Sincerely,


/s/Arthur T. Taylor

Arthur T. Taylor
SVP, Chief Financial Officer
#### HICKS v. STATE.

No. 24553.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of murder with malice and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of thirty years.

The record, as brought forward, contains no statement of facts and no bills of exception. The proceedings appear regular in every respect. Nothing is presented for review by this Court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Clayton Leon REEVES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27357.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 3, 1954.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for the primary offense of burglary with an accompanying allegation of a prior conviction for burglary. His punishment was assessed at 12 years in the penitentiary under Art. 62, P.C.

Appellant has filed his personal affidavit stating that he no longer desires to prosecute this appeal and requests that the same be dismissed.

This request is accordingly granted and the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            10,567
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                          36
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  12,211
<CASH>                                           1,604
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,205
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  12,071
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         16
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,205
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                206
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 (4)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     121
<BENEFITS>                                           0
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         27
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     62
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        39
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register: May 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 84)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 23167]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03my10-3]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0993; FRL-9144-4]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 
Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17868), EPA published a direct final 
rule approving New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 
that addressed one element of the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997 
PM2.5 standards. The direct final action was published 
without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comments. EPA 
stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comments 
by May 10, 2010, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register. EPA subsequently received timely adverse comments on the 
direct final rule. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final 
approval. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent final action 
based on the parallel proposal also published on April 8, 2010 (75 FR 
17894). As stated in the parallel proposal, EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published on April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17868), 
is withdrawn as of May 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-6717; fax number 
214-665-7263; e-mail address shahin.emad@epa.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 24, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.1620 published in the Federal 
Register on April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17868), which were to become effective 
on June 7, 2010, are withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 2010-10233 Filed 4-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                April 8, 2008 |   | /s/ John                King                                                                                                            |
|-------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | John                King                                                                                                                     |
|                                |   | Chief                Executive Officer andChief                Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer) |

----
August 6, 2010

Eleanor Ku Codding, P.E. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151-1102

Subject: Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant Response to EPA’s CWA Sec tion 308 and RCRA Section 3007 Information Request

Dear Ms. Codding:

On June 10, 2010 Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant located in Wayne County, North Carolina,

received notification of the Information Request from the Environmental Protection Agency’ s (EPA’s) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Response to this request is being submitted by August10, 2010, as agreed upon by EPA and PEC.

PEC’s response to the request, enclosed, consis ts of hard copies of associated maps and electronic copies of the res ponse text and associated Appendices. All maps are marked with their respective scales and primary featur es on the maps are identified with numbers corresponding to their identification as a management area per Question 3 of the response. The electronic files are provided as portable document format (pdf) files, created using Adobe Acrobat ®

8 Standard, Version 8.1.3. The following files are

included:

1. EPA CWA RCRA Response_PEC_Lee; 10 4 kilobytes (KB), created August 5

, 2010, 4 : 5 9 p.m.

2. EPA CWA RCRA Response_PEC_Lee_Figures; 12,187 KB, created August 5, 2010, 5 : 26 p .m. 3. EPA CWA RCRA Response_PEC_Lee_Appendices; 62,393 KB, created August 5, 2010, 3:22 p.m.

If you have any questions please cont act Mr. Fred Holt at (919) 546-5286.EPA CWA RCRA Response Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., H.F. Lee Plant August 6, 2010 Page 2

I certify, under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information subm itted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Sincerely,

Kris Edmondson Plant Manager, Lee Plant

Enclosures

KE/mmm

cc: Ricky Miller

Fred Holt
Jared Blumenfeld May 19, 2011 Page 4

bcc: Tom Cackette, EO Robert Fletcher, EO Daniel Whitney, Legal RobertCross, MSCD ErikWhite, MSCD Tony Brasil, MSCD Richard Corey, SSD MikeTollstrup, SSD Linda Murchison, PTSD Kurt Karperos, PTSD Sylvia Dey, PTSD Ravi Ramalingam, PTSD Monica Lewis, PTSD Michael Benjamin, RD Linda Smith, RD

EO Chron PTSD Chron AQTPB Chron SIP Library (wI Enclosures)

ARB #164871 PTSD #8112

S:\SIP Submittals.

- Statewide Rules\Truck and Bus Parallel Processing Request\Parallel Processing Requestv5.doc
DRAFT SPA 16 RCRAREVISION CHECKLIST 17 M 

# e Pre-construction Ban Note: States must delete the old pre-July 15, 1985 version of 270.1O(f)(3), that allows construction without a permit under limited circumstances. This language must be removed, whetheror not the State chooses to adopt the provision regarding the construction of TSCA PCBfacilities. The change made to 270.10(f)(1) is considered trivial, however, as it does not alterthe meaning of that paragraph.

FEDERALREQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION WAC 173·303 STATE ANALOG IS: EQUIV- LESS MORE BROADER ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE GENT GENT PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAM: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 

# e t new HWM facilities 270.1O(f)(1) -806(5) 

### X delete old pre-. construction provision 270.10(f)(3) No analog Removed 

### X
NEW: TSCA PCB facilities 270.10(f)(3) No analog 

### X



# e
CL17.16 - Revised: 09/18/95 Printed: 10/21/98 July 15, 1985 - Page 4 of27
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3226 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 476
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3226

                          [Report No. 113-636]

  To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
                 certain properties in South Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2013

  Mr. Rice of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

                            December 1, 2014

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on October 
                                1, 2013]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
                 certain properties in South Carolina.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF PROPERTIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA FROM JOHN H. CHAFEE 
              COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--The map subtitled ``Long Pond Unit SC-01'' 
included in the sets of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources 
System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to the Long Pond Unit in South 
Carolina is hereby replaced by another map relating to the same unit 
entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Corrected 
Long Pond Unit SC-01'' dated September 30, 2014.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep each 
map revised under subsection (a) on file and available for inspection 
in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 
(16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
                                                 Union Calendar No. 476

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3226

                          [Report No. 113-636]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
                 certain properties in South Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 1, 2014

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3241 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3241

      To amend the Pay Our Military Act to provide for continuing 
   appropriations for defense civilian personnel (including military 
technicians (dual status)) and members of the reserve components of the 
            Armed Forces performing inactive-duty training.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2013

 Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Broun 
    of Georgia, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Woodall, Mr. Collins of 
 Georgia, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mrs. Ellmers, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Denham, 
 Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Turner, and Mrs. Hartzler) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Pay Our Military Act to provide for continuing 
   appropriations for defense civilian personnel (including military 
technicians (dual status)) and members of the reserve components of the 
            Armed Forces performing inactive-duty training.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pay our Guardsmen and Civilian 
Defense Personnel Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF 
              DEFENSE AND RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL.

    Section 2(a) of the Pay Our Military Act (H.R. 3210 of the 113th 
Congress) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or inactive-duty 
        training (as those terms are defined in section 101(d) of such 
        title)'' after ``active service''; and
            (2) in paragraph, (2) by striking ``whom the Secretary 
        concerned determines are providing support to members of the 
        Armed Forces described in paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``, 
        including all military technicians (dual status)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### POWERS v. STATE.

No. 22791.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1944.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1944.

T. F. Green, Jr., of Conroe, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of passing a forged instrument, appellant was assessed a punishment of two years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.