alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79227-79228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Dakota Prairie Grasslands; North Dakota; Withdrawal of the Notice 
of Intent for Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Plan 
Amendment and Site-Specific Projects for the Elkhorn Ranchlands

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

    The Dakota Prairie Grasslands is withdrawing its notice of intent 
to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Dakota Prairie 
Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan amendment and site-
specific projects for the Elkhorn Ranchlands acquired lands. The 
original notice of intent was published in the Federal Register on 
October 8, 2008, document number E8-23812. The Dakota Prairie 
Grasslands will assign management area allocations for these lands with 
a land management plan administrative change as described in the land 
exchange regulations at 36 CFR

[[Page 79228]]

254.3 and planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.13.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this notice 
should be directed to LeAnn Colburn via U.S. postal mail at Dakota 
Prairie Grasslands Supervisors Office, 2000 Miriam Circle, Bismarck, ND 
58501; via telephone at 701-989-7304; or via email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9af6fffbf4f4b4f9f5f6f8efe8f4daefe9fefbb4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f434a4e4141014c40434d5a5d416f5a5c4b4e01484059">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the hearing 
impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 
hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

Keith Lannom,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2024-22153 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2019049EN.01001701.xml

| 7.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/17

---

Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(2019/C 49/06)

| Member State | Norway |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Røros — Oslo v.v.
  Sogndal — Oslo v.v.
  Førde — Oslo v.v.
  Sandane — Oslo v.v.
  Sogndal — Bergen v.v.
  Sandane — Bergen v.v.
  Ørsta-Volda — Bergen v.v. |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 1 April 2020 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the modified public service obligations can be obtained | Ministry of Transport and Communications |
| PO Box 8010 Dep |
| N-0030 Oslo |
| NORWAY |
| Tel. +47 22249090 |
| Email: postmottak@sd.dep.no |
| Internet: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud |

Member State

Norway

Route concerned

Røros — Oslo v.v.

Sogndal — Oslo v.v.

Førde — Oslo v.v.

Sandane — Oslo v.v.

Sogndal — Bergen v.v.

Sandane — Bergen v.v.

Ørsta-Volda — Bergen v.v.

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

1 April 2020

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the modified public service obligations can be obtained

Ministry of Transport and Communications

PO Box 8010 Dep

N-0030 Oslo

NORWAY

Tel. +47 22249090

Email: postmottak@sd.dep.no

Internet: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud

---
#### The Bank of Elmore Co., Appellee, *v.*Damschroder, Appellant.

(No. 28920

Decided January 21, 1942.)

*Messrs. Moon <& Price,*for appellee.

*Mr. Lionel Levy,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged, *sua spo-ute,*that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Bettman, J., not participating.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3011 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase the penalties 

applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after being 

removed. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2015 

Mr. SALMON (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. ZINKE, 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CLAWSON of Florida, Mr. ZELDIN, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. 

LAMALFA, Mr. MARINO, Mr. ROSS, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. JODY B. HICE

of Georgia, Mr. BRAT, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. BLUM, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. BABIN, Mr. PALMER, Mr. JONES, and Mr. YOHO) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase 

the penalties applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter 

the United States after being removed. 

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 ‘‘Establishing Manda5 tory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015’’ or as 

6 ‘‘Kate’s Law’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3011 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR REENTRY OF RE2 MOVED ALIENS. 

3 Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

4 (8 U.S.C. 1326) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a), in the matter following 

6 paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘fined under title 18, 

7 United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 

8 years, or both’’ and inserting ‘‘imprisoned not less 

9 than 5 years and not more than 6 years’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (b)— 

11 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘fined 

12 under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned 

13 not more than 10 years, or both’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘imprisoned not less than 5 and not more than 

15 10 years, and may, in addition, be fined under 

16 title 18, United States Code’’; 

17 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘fined 

18 under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 

19 years, or both’’ and inserting ‘‘imprisoned not 

20 less than 5 and not more than 20 years and 

21 may, in addition, be fined under such title’’; 

22 and 

23 (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘fined 

24 under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned 

25 for not more than 10 years, or both’’ and in26 serting ‘‘imprisoned for not less than 5 and not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3011 IH

1 more than 10 years and may, in addition, be 

2 fined under such title’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### LATHAM v. STATE.

No. 17921.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1936.

Floyd Harry, of Farmersville, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of simple assault, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $20.

The objections to the court’s charge cannot be properly appraised, in view of the fact that there is no statement of facts and no bills of exception. Therefore, 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.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11348 Summary Calendar

KURT WAYNE LOPER, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 98-CV-2191

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kurt Wayne Loper, Texas prisoner # 577692, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to pay the required $5 filing fee, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Loper argues that the district court’s dismissal was error because the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) does not apply to habeas cases. His argument misapprehends the facts of his case: the district court did not order a partial filing feeNo. 98-11348 - 2 - under the PLRA but determined that Loper had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for a habeas petition rather than proceed in forma pauperis

. Loper does not argue that he did not have sufficient funds to pay the required filing fee. Instead, he argues that the district court dismissed his case prematurely. Loper contended in his motion for an extension of time and his post-judgment motion in the district court and contends in his motion for a COA in this court that he timely requested that the filing fee be withdrawn from his inmate account but that, for reasons unknown to him, the prison delayed payment. Although it is unclear whether the district court’s dismissal was made with or without prejudice, it became effectively with prejudice due to the operation of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations provision contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). There is no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. To the contrary, the record makes clear that payment of the filing fee was in fact docketed on the same day that the district court’s dismissal order was entered. The district court abused its discretion in dismissing Loper’s § 2254 application pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992). We therefore GRANT a COA on the issue of the district court’s dismissal for failure to pay the required filing fee, and we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case to the district court for consideration of the merits of Loper’sNo. 98-11348 - 3 - habeas claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 386, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).
COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 11 7 . BI LLY W A Y NE PHI LLI PS v . THE STATE.

Bi l l y W ay n e Ph i l li p s s eek s ap p el l at e rev i ew o f t h e tri al co urt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g

h i s m o t i o n fo r a s eco n d co p y o f h i s t r i a l t r a n s cri p t an d cas e reco rd s

. W e l ack
ju ri s d i ct i o n b ecau se Ph i l l i p s ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i scret i o nary ap peal i s u nt i m el y

. An ap p l icat i o n fo r di s cret i o n ary ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f t h e

en t ry o f t h e o rd er o r ju dg m en t t o b e ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). Th e

req u i rem en t s o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d ict i o n al

, an d t h i s Co urt can no t accep t an

ap p li cat io n fo r ap peal n ot m ad e i n co m p l i an ce t h erewi th

. See Bo yl e v. S t at e , 1 9 0 Ga.
Ap p

. 73 4

, 73 4 (3 8 0 S E 2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ). Here, t he t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er was en t ered o n

J u l y 5

, 2 0 1 8

, a n d P h i l l i p s fi l ed t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r di s cret i on ary ap p eal o n Sep tem b er 2 7

, 2 01 8

, w h ich was 8 4 d ay s l at er. Hi s ap p l i cat i o n is t h us u n t i m el y , an d

i t is h ereb y

DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 18, 2018

10/18/2018
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Michael Lee, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Forza Environmental
      Building Products, Inc. for the period ended August 31, 2010 (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 Forza Environmental Building Products,
Inc.                                                                  

Dated: October 19, 2010

| | /s/
      Michael Lee                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Michael Lee                                                         
| | Chief Financial Officer                                             
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
| | Forza Environmental Building Products, Inc.                         

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Forza
Environmental Building Products, Inc. and will be retained by Forza
Environmental Building Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2023062EN.01000201.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10786 – BNP PARIBAS / CACEIS / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 62/02)

On 21 December 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10786. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10786. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-44380 and
333-36415), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-26442, 33-6141,
33-26443, 33-29144, 33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363, 33-34362, 33-62648, 333-42231
and 333-52175) and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 on Form S-8 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061) of Phelps Dodge Corporation
of our reports dated January 26, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and the financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 21, 2000
Exhibit 10(dd)

AMENDMENT TO THE AGILYSYS, INC.

BENEFIT EQUALIZATION PLAN AND SECTION 409A BENEFIT
EQUALIZATION PLAN

THIS AMENDMENT to the Agilysys, Inc. Benefit Equalization Plan and Section 409A Benefit Equalization
Plan (the Plans) is executed by Agilysys, Inc. (hereinafter known as the Company) as of the date set forth below.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Benefit Equalization Plan
effective as of April 27, 1999 and Section 409A Benefit Equalization Plan as of January 1, 2005 for the benefit of certain employees;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Benefit Equalization Plan and Section 12.1 of Section 409A Benefit Equalization Plan, the Company has the right at any time and for any reason to amend
the Plans in accordance with such Section;

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board has recommended that
the Plans be terminated effective March 31, 2011; and

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Agilysys, Inc., by its duly
authorized officer, has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be signed effective as of March 31, 2011.



AGILYSYS, INC.By:

/s/    KATHLEEN A.
WEIGANDIts:

General Counsel, Secretary & SVP HRBy:

/s/    HENRY R.
BONDIts:

SVP & CFO
# Official Journal C 103/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 103 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 601 April 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 103

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 601 April 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2017/C 103/01 | Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/621, and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya | 1 |
| 2017/C 103/02 | Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply | 2 |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 103/03 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2017/C 103/01

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/621, and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

1

2017/C 103/02

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply

2

European Commission

2017/C 103/03

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 103/04 | State aid — Estonia — State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) — Alleged illegal aid to AS Tartu Agro — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 103/04

State aid — Estonia — State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) — Alleged illegal aid to AS Tartu Agro — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7636

ALONZO JAQUA REID,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, D.O.C.,

 Respondent – Appellee,

and

BRYAN WATSON, Warden,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District 

Judge. (3:12-cv-00556-JRS)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alonzo Jaqua Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Jaqua Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Reid has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED