alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4767-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Alaska; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4767-DR), dated April 6, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lance E. Davis, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Brian F. Schiller as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-21189 Filed 9-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### BOULDING v. STATE.

No. 20942.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1940.

M. E. Lawrence, of Eastland, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for operating.an open saloon. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

The recognizance in this case is fatally defective and the appeal must be dismissed. It .merely recites that the appellant has been convicted of the offense of possession of beer without stating words which would show that under the circumstances such possession is an offense. See Wells v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 63, 24 S.W.2d 439; Robertson v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 536, 179 S.W. 106; 4 Tex.Juris., p. 134-136; Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 140 S.W.2d 175, decided by this court on March 27, 1940, but not yet reported in state reports. Moreover, the conviction was had for operating an open saloon. Furthermore, said recognizance does not state that appellant was convicted “in this cause” and it is *not*made *to*appear in what cause *816he was convicted. See Robertson v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 78 S.W. 517; Hannon v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 199. See also Art. 831, C.C.P., where a proper form is set out. It might also be noted that the caption fails to show when the term of court convened at which appellant was tried.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

On Motion to Reinstate.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

The appeal was dismissed on March 27, 1940 because of a defective recognizance. On April 11, 1940, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal, stating therein that a properly approved appeal bond had been filed with the Clerk of the trial court, who was preparing a supplemental transcript to be forwarded to this court. No such supplemental transcript had been received when the motion to reinstate was submitted on May 8, 1940 and has not been furnished up to this time.

Therefore, the motion to reinstate is overruled.
Response to the Leaks EPA White Papers on Methane and VOC 

Emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

On behalf of the Fluid Sealing Association (FSA), we respectfully submit the attached technical comments in 

response to the EPA’s leaks white paper.

Chris Swonger

SVP, Government Relations 

Smiths Group

425 Third Street, SW

Suite 875

Washington, DC 20024

(202) 777­8447 (office)

(202) 258­5777 (mobile)

chris.swonger@smiths.com

Riegner, Sarah (CWDC) <sarah.riegner@smiths.com> on behalf of 

Swonger, Chris (CWDC) <chris.swonger@smiths.com>

Mon 6/16/2014 1:26 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Henri@fluidsealing.com <Henri@fluidsealing.com>; Swonger, Chris (CWDC) <chris.swonger@smiths.com>; 

 2 attachments

removed.txt; Responses to the Leaks EPA White Paper.pdf; 

Response to the Leaks EPA White Papers on Methane a... - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/26/2014
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2396 

To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to prohibit certain waivers and 

exemptions from emergency preparedness and response and security regulations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2018 

Ms. HARRIS (for herself, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. MARKEY, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to prohibit certain 

waivers and exemptions from emergency preparedness 

and response and security regulations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Secure De5 commissioning Act of 2018’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2396 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS AND EXEMP2 TIONS. 

3 Chapter 19 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 

4 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2015 et seq.) is amended by inserting 

5 after section 276 the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 277. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS AND EX7 EMPTIONS. 

8 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

9 ‘‘(1) COVERED REGULATION.—The term ‘cov10 ered regulation’ means— 

11 ‘‘(A) an emergency preparedness or re12 sponse regulation or requirement; or 

13 ‘‘(B) a security regulation or requirement 

14 applicable to spent nuclear fuel. 

15 ‘‘(2) LICENSEE.—The term ‘licensee’ has the 

16 meaning given the term in section 50.2 of title 10, 

17 Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regu18 lation). 

19 ‘‘(b) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS AND EX20 EMPTIONS.—Subject to subsection (c), the Commission 

21 shall not approve the request of a licensee for a waiver 

22 of, or exemption from, a covered regulation applicable to 

23 a civilian nuclear power reactor that has permanently 

24 ceased to operate. 

25 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Subsection (b) shall not apply to 

26 a civilian nuclear power reactor described in that subVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:01 Feb 10, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2396.IS S2396

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2396 IS

1 section at which all spent nuclear fuel has been transferred 

2 to spent nuclear fuel dry casks.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.8

nStor Technologies, Inc.

October 31, 2004

Cenvill Recreation, Inc.1601 Forum PlaceSuite 500West Palm Beach, Florida  33417Attn:  Mark F. Levy

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain Promissory Note, dated March 2, 2004, in the amount of $750,000 (the “Note”), as amended on April 30, 2004 increasing the outstanding principal of the Noteto $756,870, as amended on July 31, 2004, increasing the outstanding principal balance of the Note to $772,090, with a maturity date of October 31, 2004 (“Amended Note”), payable by nStor Technologies, Inc. to Cenvill Recreation, Inc., copies of which areattached hereto. 

1)   The maturity date of the Amended Note is hereby extended from October 31, 2004 to January 15, 2005 (“Maturity”).

2)   Accrued and unpaid interest on the Amended Note through October 31, 2004 in the amount of $15,526 is hereby added to the $772,090 principal amount of the Amended Note so that as of the date hereof, the principalamount of the Amended Note has been increased to $787,616 (the “New Principal Amount”).  Interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amount and be payable at Maturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,

                                                                       Cenvill Recreation, Inc.

/s/ ToddGresham                                            Agreed By: /s/ Mark F. LevyToddGresham                                                                        Mark F. LevyPresident                                                                                 Vice President and Secretary

**6190 Corte Del Cedro * Carlsbad * California * 92009(760) 683-2500 * fax (760) 683-2544**
From: George Pruchnofski To: Aagenes, Jason D. Cc: Beth Havlik ; Charles Gantzer ; Erik Boleman ; Paul Taylor ; Jamie LePage Subject: BART and Future projects questions Date: Thursday, July 05, 2007 10:48:17 AM

Jason: We are working on things and have a few immediate questions:
1. BART water treatment costs - we can go with costing either of two technology options - hot lime softening for dissolved solids/fluoride reduction like required at NSM and Keetac and Minntac new scrubber projects

or

- Reverse osmosis (RO)for sulfate removal due to wild rice or other concerns The advantage of the RO is that it is very costly and will likely throw a scubber out of BART cost range, the disadvantage is that we are uncertain whether wild rice would be an issue and it could be for the existing facility and this will be more visible to MPCA manangement and for public scrutiny since environmental groups and others will be made aware of this as part of the BART process. The advantage of costing hot lime softening is that others have been required to do this and it will not appear as an unexpected cost to MPCA and should not raise new public issues that we might have to deal with. On the other hand the costs will not be as great. Therefore, I recommend we should consider hot-lime softening costs first and then only go to RO if the BART costanalysis/decision does not favor us. Please let us know your decision on this matter.

2. You asked us to do a solid fuel evaluation and recommendation - we have been throwing this around and we can consider environmental (eg - sulfur ) or we can go beyond to help look at other considerations as well (slagging - due to sodium, ash - operating considerations, cost of fuel, etc). We might not be able to address all other considerations by the end of the month but can help move this pretty far along and also we will need UTAC people input (e.g. - Tom D.) in the broader evaluation. Please advise whether you want us to help with the environemntal component only or look at broader cosiderations in completing our analysis and making recommendations for solid fuel.

3. As a reminder, please send me the latest SDS permit for the tailings basin ASAP so we can consider the implications for the various projects analysis.

4. We will be sending you a list of air related questions by the end of the week.

That is it for now George Pruchnofski, P.E.Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Tel: 952 832-2638 Fax: 952-832-2601 e-mail: gpruchnofski@barr.com
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA-}()/~ "") i '-{I 2_ O!C/ .-- !1JM- Q Y :l ,..A-]) 

Directorate Identifier: -AD 

I 

With whom outside the FAA bas this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

. manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? ~--~----~--~------------------------~ 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Airlines 4 America R. Ireland 10/28/2014 Other. List below. 

··----h~·-·----

!---· 

----·-

------·-·--------- ------------ ~------·-···-··------------·--

Other/Additional information: Alerted A4A that FAA is considering mandating relevant SB 

actions. 

DO NOT DELETE PAGE BREAK
EXHIBIT 21--SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    State of

Name                                                    Incorporation
----                                                    -------------
<S>                                                     <C>

First Merchants Bank, National Association................U.S.

Madison Community Bank..................................Indiana

First United Bank.......................................Indiana

The Union County National Bank of Liberty.................U.S.

The Randolph County Bank................................Indiana

First National Bank, National Association.................U.S.

</TABLE>
#### HARVEY v. STATE.

No. 18868.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1937.

C. C. McDonald and J. Earl Kuntz, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

*27Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for passing a forged instrument; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant insists that there is a variance between the proof and the instrument set up in the indictment. Clearly matters were set up in the indictment, as being part of the instrument in question, which were placed there after same had been executed. The State’s Attorney with this court confesses error in the matter referred to. In his brief he assents to the proposition that when the State makes unnecessary averments in its indictment, it assumes the burden of making proof thereof, and Berry v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 549, 289 S.W. 412, and Fischl v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 55, 111 S.W. 410, are cited.

For the error mentioned the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

            Osmonics, Inc.

            We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
            Statements No. 33-25228 and No. 33-537 of Osmonics, Inc. on
            Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-05029 filed on
            Form S-3 of our reports dated February 19, 1998 (March 20, 1998
            as to Note 17) appearing and incorporated by reference in this
            Annual Report on Form 10-K of Osmonics, Inc. for the year
            ended December 31, 1997.


            DELOITTE AND TOUCHE


            Minneapolis, Minnesota
            MARCH 26, 1998
**IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**  SI ERRA CLUB,

Plaintiff,
vs. LISA JACKSON, ADMINI STRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:1 1

- CV

- 00100

- JDB

**LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR -**  **DEFENDANT BCCA APPEAL GROUP**  I, the undersigned, counsel of record for BCCA Appeal Group, certify that to the best of my k nowledge and belief, the following are parent compani es, subsidiaries, or affiliates of BCCA Appeal Group which have an y outstandingsecurities in the hands of the public: BCCA Appeal Group is a non - profit corporation and has no parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates. It has no outstanding securitie s in the hands of the public. These representations are made in order that judges of this court may determine the need for recusal. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard P. Sobiecki Richard P. Sobiecki (D.C. Bar # 500163) Baker Botts L.L.P. 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 639

- 7906 Zachary L . Craft Baker Botts L.L.P. One Shell Plaza2 910 L ouisiana Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 229

- 1133 Attorneys for BCCA Appeal Group
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 26, 2023

NO. 03-23-00379-CV

Phillip G. “Baby Shark” Scott, Appellant

v.

Aaron Seymour, Judge Daniel Mills, and Judge Andrew Leonie, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION –

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Exhibit 32(a)


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of IBW Financial Corporation. for
the quarter ended June 30, 2003, I, B. Doyle Mitchell, Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of IBW Financial Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,
2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of IBW Financial Corporation.


 /s/ B. Doyle Mitchell, Jr.
-------------------------------------------
B. Doyle Mitchell, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
June 17, 2014

Mr. Terry J. Tyner

Vice President

Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc.

4805 East Falcon Drive

Mesa, Arizona 85215

Dear Mr. Tyner:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 91.1605 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 1, 2014, exemption request on behalf of Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc.

into the public docket (No. FAA-2014-0460), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

• The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside 

the United States. 

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 
2

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Michelle Ferritto

Acting Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AFS-14-364-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-101:KJones:7/14/2014:Doc#40057

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office AFS-200

MR TERRY J TYNER

VICE PRESIDENT

FLIGHT TRAILS HELICOPTERS INC

4805 EAST FALCON DRIVE

MESA ARIZONA 85215
#### MENDIOLA v. STATE.

No. 18569.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

E. H. Talbert, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W- Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for negligent homicide, punishment being assessed at confinement in the county jail for one month.

No bills of exception appear in the record. The motion for new trial raises only two questions^ one that the complaint and ’ information are insufficient, the other that the evidence does not support the conviction.

We discover no vice in the Stdte’s pleading. The prosecution grew out of a collision between two motor vehicle's. The facts make it apparent that a blackboard or map was used in developing the evidence and the witnesses would indicate from the map the movements of the cars. This may have been perfectly clear to the trial judge who tried the case, but it makes a very confusing record for the appellate court.

By an oversight possibly in developing the case, or in preparing the statement of facts, the record fails to show that the party injured as a result of the accident is dead. The record shows that after the accident he was sitting up by the side of the building into which his truck crashed. He was alive at that time, but did not speak to witnesses who went to him. An ambulance came and carried him to the hospital. No further mention of him is found in the statement of facts. Of course, there could be no kind of a homicide unless death resulted. Article 1201, P.C.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack M. Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Paradise, Inc.



|                                      |  |                     
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|/s/ Jack M. Laskowitz                 |  | Date: March 31, 2009
|Jack M. Laskowitz                     |  |                     
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |  |
Letter to SEC Agreeing to Furnish Certain Debt Instruments



 EXHIBIT 4.2 
  

October 19, 2004 
  
 Securities and Exchange Commission 
 450 Fifth Avenue, N.W. 
 Washington, D.C. 20549 
  
 Re: Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. 
  
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
  
 In accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) has not filed herewith any instrument with respect to long-term debt not being registered where the total amount of securities authorized thereunder does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total assets of the Registrant and
its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The Registrant hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any such agreement to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. 
  

	
	/S/    JON D. KLINE
	 Jon D. Kline

	 Executive Vice President and

	 Chief Financial Officer