alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: S. Michele Manning

Page 1 of 1

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 63

February 26, 1986

Dr. Kenneth N. Weaver

State Geologist & Director

Maryland Geological Survey

The Rotunda

711 West 40th Street, Suite 440

Baltimore, Maryland 21211

TOPIC: POSTMINING LAND USES

INQUIRY: Have any states developed standards with respect to reclamation of areas which are 

stated to be used for industrial, commercial or residential development after mining?

SEARCH RESULTS: 30 CFR Sec. 816.133(c) establishes criteria for alternative postmining 

land uses. "Higher or better uses" for mined land may be approved by the regulatory authority 

after consultation with the landowner or land management agency having jurisdiction over the 

land. Criteria for alternative uses are found at Sec. 816.133(c )(1)-(3).

A COALEX search was conducted to identify the pertinent state regulations. A majority of the 

states use criteria which is very similar to that found in the federal regulations. Copies of these 

documents were forwarded to Dr. Weaver.

ATTACHMENTS

A. 30 CFR Sec. 816.133 (1985).

B. 11 Alaska Admin. Code, Title 90, Sec. 87 (1983).

C. Arkansas Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Code, Secs. 780.23, 816.133 (1980).

D. Illinois Surface Coal Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Regs., Sec. 1816.133 

(1980).

E. 310 Indiana Admin. Code Sec. 12-5-68 (1982).

F. Iowa Admin. Code Sec. 4.323(9) (1981).

G. 405 Kentucky Admin. Regs. Sec. 16:210E (1981).

H. Mississippi Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Regs., Sec. 216.133 (1980)

I. 10 Missouri Admin. Code Sec. 40-3.130 (1980).

J. North Dakota Reclamation Regs., Sec. 69-05.22-09-13 (1983).

K. Ohio Admin. Code Sec. 1501:13-9-17 (1982).

L. Pennsylvania Admin. Bull., Sec. 87.159 (1982).

M. Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Regs., Sec. V816.133 (1982).

N. West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Regs., Sec. 4D (1984).
1 

### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00063

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN RE CYPRESS TEXAS LLOYDS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 1

Relator, Cypress Texas Lloyds, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on January

31, 2011, seeking to compel the trial court to withdraw its order denying relator’s motion

t o abate the underlying lawsuit. On February 2, 2011, this Court requested that the real

parties in interest, Guadalupe Salazar and Claudia Salazar, file a response to the

petition for writ of mandamus. The parties to this proceeding have now filed a “Joi nt

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required

to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus” on grounds that this original

proceeding has been rendered moot.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the joint motion to dismiss, is of

the opinion that the parties have shown themselves ent itled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this original proceeding is

DISMISSED without reference to the merits thereof.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 18 th day of February

, 2011

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
unaudited  consolidated  balance sheet of AT&T Corp.  at June 30, 1998,  and the
unaudited  consolidated  statement of income for the six-month period ended June
30, 1998,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         7,845
<SECURITIES>                                   123
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,297
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,044
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,179
<PP&E>                                         48,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                 23,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 61,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,725
<BONDS>                                        7,161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,709
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   61,085
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               26,042
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               714
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                   626
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                 1,300
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,424
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.89


</TABLE>
DENY and Opinion Filed August 5, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00767-CV 

IN RE ERIC RIOJA, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17918 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

 Relator Eric Rioja petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the 

trial court to (1) vacate a July 27, 2022 Order Denying Defendant Eric Rioja’s 

Motions to Vacate Appointment of Receiver, (2) vacate an October 21, 2021 Order 

Appointing Receiver, and (3) find void a June 24, 2021 Default Judgment. Also 

before this Court is Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay Lower Court Proceedings 

Pending Writ of Mandamus (Emergency Motion) wherein relator asks this Court to 

(1) suspend enforcement of the June 24, 2021 Default Judgment, (2) suspend 

enforcement of the July 27, 2022 Order Denying Defendant Eric Rioja’s Motions to 

Vacate Appointment of Receiver, and (3) suspend all actions and powers granted to 

Receiver Robert Berleth in the October 21, 2021 Order Appointing Receiver. 
 –2– 

 Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

After reviewing relator’s petition and record, we conclude that relator has failed to 

demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.1

 Accordingly, we deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also deny 

relator’s Emergency Motion as moot. 

220767F.P05 

1

 Relator’s appendix and record contain a Declaration of Eric Rioja, which included an Exhibit A-1. 

Because our review of the record indicates that this declaration was not before the trial court when it made 

the rulings challenged in this original proceeding, we have not considered the declaration or its attachment 

when deciding relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(2), 52.7(a); In re de Kallop, No. 14-20-00033-

CV, 2020 WL 1862017, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] April 14, 2020, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.). 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE
# Environmental Impact Statement

OSMRE GUIDE  - NEPA Review and Coordination PointsEnvironmental Impact Statements (EIS)
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------

McGladrey & Pullen
Certified Public Accountants




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-67114 and 333-17695 of AMREP Corporation on Form S-8 of our report, dated
June 13, 2006, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AMREP
Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2006.


/s/McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
--------------------------
Davenport, Iowa
July 26, 2006
























McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International-
an affiliation of separate and independent legal entities.
#### WILLIE GAITHER *vs.*ELIJAH TEAGUE.

Where on a contract for the sale of a horse the vendor is to retain the title until the purchase money is paid, and the vendee gives his note for the priee and takes posséssion of the horse, it is comp.etent for the vendor, in an action to recover the horse from one claiming under the vendee, to shew a judgment on the vendee’s note, execution and return of *nulla bona,*in *order*to shew that the price had not been paid;

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Caldwell County, at the Fall Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.

This was an action of trover for a horse. The plaintiff shewed title to the property by offering in evidence an in. strument of writing signed by Edward Teague, under whom the defendant claimed. The instrument was in the following words, viz :•

“State of North Carolina, ) Know all men by these Burke County. j presents, that I, Edward

Teague, have this day bargained for a sorrel filly of Willie Gaither, which filly I want to stand as security until I pay him the said Gaither for her. I also promise to take good care of her. Witness my hand and seal this 5th of October, 1836. Edward Teague.”

At the time the instrument in question was executed and the possession of the properly passed to Edward TeaguOj the plaintiff took the note of the said Edward for thirty dollars, being the price of the horse. Afterwards tho plaintiff sued on the said note, obtained judgment and sued out exe*66cution, on which the officer returned “no goods.” On the the plaintiff offered to give these proceedings in evi-¿|fincei to s(lew- that the debt had not been paid and that the said Edward was insolvent. The evidence was rejected by the Court. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and judgment having been rendered pursuant thereto, the plaintiff appealed.

*Boy&en*for the plaintiff.

*Badger*for the defendant.

Daniel, J.

We think that the evidence rejected by the Superior Court would have been admissible against Edward Teague, if he had been the defendant. And as the present defendant claims under Edward (how it does not appear), it must be good evidence against him.

Per Curiam, Judgment reversed and *venire de novo*awarded.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 21, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 692 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-362, K2025-360.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27155 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
5. State RA submits PAP 

to OSMRE for review

1. State RA regulates Coal Mining on Federal 

Lands Pursuant to the State Program

(State-Federal Cooperative Agreement) 

1a. State RA request funding 

through the regulatory grant

for Federal Lands

1b. Field and Regional 

Office Reviews and 

Approves Regulatory Grant

3b. State RA reviews Permit 

Application Package (PAP) 

operator including 

approved lease and BLM 

Cost Recovery Plan

3a. State RA determines 

PAP as Administratively 

Complete and notifies 

OSMRE

2. OSMRE coordinates with BLM 

and Land Management Agency 

to review proposed mining 

operation and reclamation plan

4. State RA approves PAP as 

technically complete 

6. Secretary approved 

Mining plan decision 

document

1. OSMRE assesses PAP 

based on SMCRA and MLA 

requirements

5. Mining Plan Decision 

Document Provided to 

ASLM

7. ASLM Approves the 

Mining Plan 

Step 1

Other 

Regulatory 

Processes

Step 2

Other 

Regulatory 

Processes

Step 3

Other 

Regulatory 

Processes

Step 4

Other 

Regulatory 

Processes

4. OSMRE prepares 

recommendation for 

Mining Plan Decision 

Document

OSMRE evaluates 

significance of impacts and 

prepares appropriate NEPA 

documentation

OSMRE makes a finding 

and prepares a decision 

document

OSMRE establishes 

assesses environmental 

resources 

2.EA or EIS 

Determination

(See Chapter 2)

3. Identify 

Alternatives

(if any) and Study 

Methodologies

6. Alternative 

Selection and 

Decision 

Document

1. Identify the 

Proposal and Need

4. Complete 

Studies/Technical 

Reports 

DEIS or EA

5. NEPA 

Document and 

Preferred 

Alternative

NEPA Compliance 

Complete

ASLM Disapproves 

the 

Mining Plan 

Start

NEPA Review

(Data Collection 

Complete)

2. State RA receives Permit 

application from operator 

with approved lease and 

BLM Cost Recovery Plan

APPENDIX 4.2-2

Federal Lands Program – Review and Approval of Mining Plan Decision

(Federal-State Cooperative Agreements)

3. State RA consults with BLM 

and Land Management Agency 

3. OSMRE prepares Mining 

Plan Decisions Document 

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)
Exhibit 10.20

COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS

For fiscal 2005, each Director of Alderwoods Group, Inc. (the "Company") who is not an employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries ("Outside
Directors") receives an annual base retainer of $32,000. In addition, with respect to Board and each standing or other committee meeting, each Outside Director receives $2,000 for each meeting
attended in person (other than members of the Audit Committee, who received $4,000 for each meeting of the Audit Committee attended in person) and $500 for each meeting attended by telephone. The
chair of the Compensation Committee and the chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receive an additional $7,500 as part of their annual base retainer, and the chair of the Audit
Committee receives an additional $15,000 as part of her annual base retainer.

Pursuant
to the Company's Director Compensation Plan (the "Director Compensation Plan"), each Outside Director has the option of receiving his or her annual base retainer and
attendance fees in cash, Common stock or a combination thereof. Furthermore, each participant in the Director Compensation Plan may elect to have Common stock paid in the form of deferred common stock
("Deferred Stock"), which will be credited to a booking account in the name of the participant. The Deferred Stock is subject to a deferral period during which the participant has no right to transfer
any rights under his or her Deferred Stock and has no other rights of ownership therein.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 CERTIFICATION PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation for the quarter ended September 30,
2004, I, P. Chrisman Iribe, President of Indiantown Cogeneration Funding
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:  (1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation. November 10, 2004
    
    /s/ P. CHRISMAN IRIBEP. Chrisman IribePresidentIndiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P. and will be retained by Indiantown
Cogeneration, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC., ) 

Complainant ) 

) FAA Docket No. 16-15-03 

~ ) 

) 

CITY OF RENTON, ) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER 

On July 22, 2015, counsel for Respondent, City of Renton, filed a Motion under 14 C.F.R. 

§ 16.19(e), requesting an extension of time to August 7, 2015, to file its Answer to the 

Complaint and response to Complainant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

Counsel advised that the Respondent needs additional time because of constrained 

resources to respond to the Complaint and Motion. Counsel advised that the Complainant 

does not oppose this extension. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. See Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airports (Retrospective 

Regulatory Review) Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 56135 (Sept. 12, 2013); Rules of Practice for 

Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 

16, 1996). Parties may file a written motion for an extension of time. 14 C.F.R. § 

16.19( e). The Director may issue an order extending any time period prescribed where 

necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency. 

14 C.F.R. § 16.ll(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Respondent 

is hereby granted an extension of time to submit an Answer to the Complaint and answer to 

Complainant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 
The Answer is now due on August 7, 2015. Complainant may file a Reply within ten days 

of the date of service of the Answer. The answer to Complainant's Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction now is due on August 7, 2015. 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

~'. _., 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 1

1-:') , 2015, I caused to be emailed and placed in 

the United States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the 

foregoing ORDER addressed to: 

Complainant 

Bernard A. Paholke 

Vice President 

PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. 

750 W. Perimeter Rd. Unit 1 

Renton, WA 98057 

proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Zan etta L. Fontes 

Senior Assistant City Attorney 

CITY OF RENTON 

1055 South Grady Way 

Renton, WA 98057 

zfontes@rentonwa.gov 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (AC0-100) 

I "'·' ; !I 

Cla;iaia \ It"=~· Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
Exhibit 32(a)

18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification

I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bancorp.

Date: November 13, 2006

 

| /s/ Mary B. Halsey                                                                                                                        |   |   |  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--|
|  

 

 

Mary B. HalseyPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

 

 

 

  |
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 4, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 42 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 1- cr-0 00 24 -MTT-CHW-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES POOLE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (May 4, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andHILL, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo hn Ph il ip Fo x, ap po in te d c ou ns el forCh arl es Po ol e in th is ap pe al , has

m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en tati on of t he ap pe ll an t an d h as fil eda br ie f pu rs ua ntto And

er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d 49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andPo ol e’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are AFFIRMED .

2