alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
APPENDIX 4.2-9

AML Reclamation Economic Development Pilot Process

OSMRE makes a finding 

and prepares a decision 

document

(FONSI, Significance 

Determination, or ROD)

10. State/Tribe spends 

AML Pilot funds on 

approved project to 

reclaim and/or develop 

site for economic use

AML Pilot Project 

Completed

1. Congress announces 

annual AML Pilot funding 

as part of annual 

Appropriations Law

2. OSMRE informs 

eligible states/tribes 

that they will receive 

AML Pilot funds

3. States/Tribes 

compile and vet 

potential projects to 

submit to OSMRE to 

receive AML Pilot Funds

5. State/Tribe gather 

additional information 

for submittal of a 

Authorization to 

Proceed (ATP) Request 

4. OSMRE issues 

preliminary approval of 

projects based on 

funding eligibility 

criteria in Eligibility 

Guidance Document

6. Application Review 

for

Administratively and 

Technically 

Completeness

7. State/Tribe submit a 

Complete Request for 

Authorization to 

Proceed

3. CE, EA, 

or EIS Determination

(See Chapter 2)

4. Identify 

Alternatives

(if any) and Study 

Methodologies

7. Alternative 

Selection and 

Decision 

Document

1. Identify the 

Proposal and Need

2.Identify Federal 

Action(s)

5. Complete 

Studies/Technical 

Reports 

DEIS or EA

6. NEPA 

Document and 

Preferred 

Alternative

NEPA Compliance 

Complete

OSMRE assesses the 

environmental review in 

the ATP request 

(EA or DEIS)

OSMRE evaluates 

significance of impacts 

and prepares appropriate 

NEPA documentation

(FEIS)

8.OSMRE completes 

review of all Funding 

Requirements for 

Proposed Pilot Project

Step 1

Other Regulatory 

Processes

(ie. CWA, NHPA...)

Step 2

Other Regulatory 

Processes

(ie. CWA, NHPA...)

Step 3

Other Regulatory 

Processes

(ie. CWA, NHPA...)

Step 4

Other Regulatory 

Processes

(ie. CWA, NHPA...)

Start NEPA 

Review

(Data Collection 

Complete)

9. All federal 

requirements are met 

OSMRE issues ATP

Note: This flowchart only illustrates an approval process. An applicant can withdraw the 

proposal, and/or OSMRE can request additional information, and/or not approve the proposal 

at anytime throughout the review process.

Legend

Beginning or End Point Task Direction Arrows

Required Project Tasks Iterative Task Direction Arrows

State or Tribal Program Responsibility

OSMRE Program Responsibility

OSMRE NEPA Review Tasks

OSMRE Tasks for Other Regulatory Processes 

Timing Guide in relation to Tasks

Milestone and Decisions Points

NEPA Schedule Guide

Guidelines for Milestones and Decisions 

Point Timing (Note: Approximately located as a 

sliding scale based on specific project circumstances)
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 2009

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. Friday, 
January 9; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of 
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the 
day, and there then be a period of morning business, with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
## Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld

**JUDGE MICHAEL H. SCHOENFELD**

Michael H. Schoenfeld, an Administrative Law Judge of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Review Commission), died after a tragic accident on October 11, 2004, agency Chairman W. Scott Railton and Chief Administrative Law Judge Irving Sommer regretfully announced on October 12, 2004.

“Judge Schoenfeld faithfully served the cause of occupational safety and health as an administrative law judge. We will deeply miss him both as a colleague, a judge and as a friend,” Chairman Railton said.

Judge Schoenfeld began his Federal career as a staff attorney at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after graduating with a Juris Doctor from the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, D.C. in 1969. A native New Yorker, he earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont in 1966.

He joined the Review Commission in 1972, about a year after the agency opened for business in 1971. He served the agency as a staff attorney for one its first three Commissioners, Alan F. Burch. He then served Commissioner Timothy F. Cleary as a staff attorney and later became Associate General Counsel for the Review Commission. He left the agency in 1981 to become an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Social Security Administration. From 1985 until 1989, he served as an ALJ for the U.S. Department of Labor and rejoined the Review Commission in May 1989 as an ALJ, where he worked at the time of his death.

He is survived by his wife of 30 years, Kathleen McMillan, a brother, nieces, nephews, other family members and a host of friends.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 18 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 18

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY.

    The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 25, 
2017, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of 
remembrance of victims of the

              

 Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out 
in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may 
prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 6, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 18

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.
```
OSTI.GOV
All News Articles *(filtered)*
*DOE CODE Accepts Limited Availability Software*

# DOE CODE Accepts Limited Availability Software

Filter for News

                                            - Share on Facebook
                                            - Share on Twitter
                                            - Send a Link via E-mail
                                            - Print
                                            - More share options ... -  LinkedIn
-  Pinterest
-  Tumblr

The United States Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) is working to streamline and modernize the submission of research output records by DOE-funded researchers. A recent improvement to DOE CODE now allows submission of both unlimited and limited availability software, making it easy to provide DOE-funded software to OSTI via one interface.

DOE CODE is the software services platform and search tool for both scientific and non-scientific (business) software developed with DOE funding. DOE CODE, launched by OSTI in 2017, is an open-source platform that provides functionality for collaboration, archiving, and discovery of DOE software. Initially, only unlimited availability software could be accepted through DOE CODE. Limited availability software was still accepted through E-Link, OSTI's submission system for DOE-funded research outputs. OSTI is now transitioning the announcement of limited availability software to DOE CODE to centralize software submission for the DOE community.

When submitting limited availability software records to OSTI, users can digitally upload source code with the records. Unlike unlimited, open source records, landing page URLs are not required for limited software records, and DOIs will not be registered for these records. The landing page requirement for unlimited, closed source records was also removed. After submission of limited software, records will be discoverable to the DOE community via the Science Research Connection (SRC), in accordance with dissemination of other limited availability research output records.

For more information, these improvements are detailed in the FAQs, Help, and Software Policy pages at DOE CODE, or you can contact us at doecode@osti.gov.
#### Northwestern Fuel Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and another, Respondents.

*September 12*

October *9, 1928.*

*49For the appellant there was a brief by *Powell & Sprowls*of Superior and *A. E. Boyesen*of St. Paul, Minn., and oral argument by *John S. Sprowls.*

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*arid *Mortimer Levitan*and *Frank W. Kuehl,*assistant attorneys general, and oral argument by *Mr. Kuehl.*

For the respondent Swanson there was a brief by *Hile & Dahl,*attorneys, and *A. Walter Dahl,*of counsel, all of Superior, and oral argument by *Mr. Dahl.*

*50Eschweiler, J.

Appellant’s attack upon the award of compensation by the Industrial Commission to Swanson is that their finding in effect is that Swanson was at the time on the premises of his employer, the plaintiff.

The statutory provision involved, sec. 102.03 (2), reads: . . Every employee going to and from his employment in the ordinary and usual way, *while on the premises of his*employer, shall be deemed to be performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment.”

The evidence before the Industrial Commission warrants a conclusion that this northeasterly extension of Hill avenue was encroached upon to a large extent by plaintiff and almost entirely devoted to its exclusive use except as it was crossed by the railroad tracks; the plaintiff largely if not entirely kept it in repair and furnished all the material for repairs; it was its recognized way for employees to come and go'to the other portion of its premises; it recognized in its use thereof no distinction between the small strip where the accident occurred, the fee of which happened to be in another, and the rest of that short extension of Hill avenue. It treated it for all practical purposes as its premises. Though nominally a public highway dedicated to public uses, plaintiff used it as part or parcel of its premises, just as though it had the fee title to all as in fact it had except for the narrow strip opposite where the injury happened.

We are constrained to hold that the term “premises of his employer” as used in this statute should not be construed to be limited to the soil over which he has legal dominion or title, but to that which he uses, to all intents and purposes, as his premises.

Under the controlling facts as here presented we think the judgment below affirming the award was correct.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03510

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners  1994-A,  Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,254
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,851
<PP&E>                                         3,002,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,739,491)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,290,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          257,978
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,032,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,290,633
<SALES>                                        80,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               80,836
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  469,275<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (410,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (410,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (410,650)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

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.

March 17, 2015 

# Order

March 17, 2015

149872 ( 60 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

SEAN HARRIS

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. SC: 149872

COA: 317158

Wayne CC: 13

- 001620

- AR

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Police Officers Association of

Michigan for leave to participate as amicus curiae and to file an amicus brief is

GRANTED. The amicus brief will be accepted for filing if submitted w ithin 21 days of

the filing of plaintiff

- appellee’s brief. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of

the Police Officers Association of Michigan to participate in oral argument is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC.
(the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

February 27, 2009



/s/ Paul J. EvansonPaul J. Evanson Principal Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91397-91398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26967]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a) (HOLA) and Regulation 
LL (12 CFR part 238) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting 
securities or

[[Page 91398]]

assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages 
either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a 
nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  238.53 of Regulation LL (12 
CFR 238.53). Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted 
throughout the United States.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on whether the 
proposed transaction complies with the standards enumerated in section 
10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise 
noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United 
States.
    Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, 
comments received will be made available without change and will not be 
modified to remove personal or business information including 
confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments 
should not include any information such as confidential information 
that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than December 19, 2024.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
[email protected]:
    1. Mutual Federal Bancorp, MHC, and its subsidiary, Mutual Federal 
Bancorp, Inc., both of Chicago, Illinois; to acquire Pulaski Savings 
Bank, also of Chicago, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-26967 Filed 11-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 44 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 44

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 2017

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior 
 relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the 
procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to 
          the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, 

              

 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land 
Management of the Department of the Interior relating to ``Resource 
Management Planning'' (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 89580 (December 12, 
2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 7, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Thomas P. Branch, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The Mechanics’ Bank of Augusta, defendant in error.

(This case was argued at the January term, 1874, and decision reserved.)

1. Under the decision in *Kimbro vs. The Bank of Fulton,*49 *Georgia Reports,*419, the plea in this case was defective in not fully setting out-the facts relied on to sustain it, and the demurrer on that ground should have been sustained.

2. The other questions raised on the trial are decided in the cases of *Dobbins vs. Sibley,*and *Branch vs. Baker,*pronounced on at the present term.

Constitutional law. Pleading. Before Judge Gibson. Richmond Superior Court. April Term, 1873.

Branch brought complaint against the Mechanics’ Bank for $95,641 00, and twenty-five per cent, damages, besides interest, on certain of. its bills, all dated and alleged to have been issued prior to the year 1861. The defendant pleaded “that the several notes or bills on which said action is founded *526were issued and paid out during the late rebellion of the southern states, for the purpose of aiding and encouraging said rebellion, and received for that purpose by the parties to whom they were issued.” This plea was verified as follows:

“Thomas P. Metcalf, president of the Mechanics’ Bank, being duly sworn, saith that he has reason to believe that the obligations or evidences of indebtedness upon which the above stated suit is founded, or some part thereof, have been given in and for the illegal purpose set forth in the foregoing plea. Sworn to,” etc.

The plaintiff demurred to said plea. The demurrer was overruled and plaintiff excepted.

The jury found for the defendant. Error is assigned upon the above ground of exceplion.

Henry W. Hilliard; Z. D. Harrison, for plaintiff in error.

W. T. Gould; *W.*H. Hull, for defendant.

Trippe, Judge.

1. In *Kimbro vs. The Bank of Fulton,*49 *Georgia,*419, it was held that where a defendant sets up by plea that the contract is void, on the ground that it was made for the purpose of aiding and encouraging *“the late rebellion,”*it is necessary that the facts should be stated in such 'plea going to show how and in what way the contract was intended to give such encouragement and aid. Under that ruling this plea is defective, and the demurrer should have been sustained on that ground.

2. The other questions made on the trial come within the decisions in the cases of *Dobbins vs. Sibley,*and *Branch vs. Baker,*pronounced at the present term, and are controlled by them. They need not be repeated here.

Judg m ent reversed.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                       ASCHE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN

         The Asche Transportation Services, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the "Plan")
is hereby amended, effective May 19, 1999, as follows:

         1. The aggregate number of Shares as to which Options may be granted
pursuant to Article II of the Plan shall be increased from 908,500 to 1,162,500.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Asche Transportation Services, Inc. has caused this
Amendment to be executed by its officer hereto duly authorized this 19th day of
May 1999.


                                           ASCHE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.


                                           By:  /s/ Larry L. Asche
                                               --------------------
                                           Name:  Larry L. Asche
                                           Its Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                  Officer