alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS John S. McCain Visits Puerto Princesa on Patrol

By Commander, Task Force 70 Public Affairs 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 226: Mr. Thompson of California.
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1210 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2018 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 122 W. Goodwin Street, Pleasanton, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Pleasanton Veterans Post Office’’. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1210 RDS

1 SECTION 1. PLEASANTON VETERANS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 122 W. Goodwin Street, 

4 Pleasanton, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Pleasanton Veterans Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Pleasanton Veterans 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Will of Peters: Bitney and others, Appellants, vs. Odegard and another, Executors, Respondents.

*December 7, 1936*

January *12, 1937.*

*413For the appellants there was a brief by *Gilbert, Ela, Heil-man & Raeder*of Madison, and oral argument by *G. Burgess Ela.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Lowry, Beggs & Dawson,*and oral argument by *H. J. Lowry*and *Mildred E. De Vries,*all of Madison.

Rosenberry, C. J.

While it is true that a will must be construed in accordance with the evident intention of the testator, when that intention is clearly expressed in appropriate language the instrument admits of no construction. *Estate of Allis*(1926), 191 Wis. 23, 209 N. W. 945, 210 N. W. 418; *Will of Trautwein*(1932), 208 Wis. 107, 241 N. W. 334.

The argument that the words of the second paragraph “and to her heirs and assigns forever” are words of substitution is ingenious but tenuous. From time immemorial, even under the rule of *Shelley’s Case,*these words whether used in a will or a deed have been held to create an estate in fee simple. 1 Restatement, Property, §§ 27 c, 37 *d.*If para*414graph 5 be construed as appellants claim it should be, to work an equitable conversion of that part of the estate composed of realty, nevertheless the will would vest in the devisee a full title. In *Matter of Evans*(1922), 234 N. Y. 42, 136 N. E. 233, the words “or his lawful heirs” as applied to personal property were held to create a gift in the alternative because of the peculiar language of the will. The words used in the will under consideration are the usual and customary words used by lawyers and those familiar with the drafting of legal instruments to express an intention to convey all the interest in the property which the testator or grantor has. There is no adequate reason in the present case why the well-established meaning of this language should be departed from.

*By the Court.*— That part of the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III Call with Singapore Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III Call with Singapore Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By Attributed to Pentagon Press Secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder</b> <span class="date">/ Published Oct. 31, 2022</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>WASHINGTON -- Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III spoke with Singapore's Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen by phone Oct. 27 to discuss regional security issues and mutual efforts to strengthen defense cooperation.<br />
<br />
The two leaders exchanged views on the security environment in the Indo-Pacific region, including shared concerns about the potential for escalation of regional tensions and the need for open communication. Secretary Austin noted his appreciation for the access Singapore provides to U.S. forces, noting that Singapore is one of the United States' most valued defense partners in the region. Both leaders reaffirmed their mutual commitment to the U.S.-Singapore bilateral defense relationship.<br />
<br />
The two leaders reiterated that the partnership between the United States and Singapore is built on common principles. Secretary Austin expressed his appreciation for Singapore's leadership in Southeast Asia; both leaders look forward to upcoming U.S.-ASEAN engagements later this year. The Secretary and Minister Ng closed the call by underscoring their mutual commitment to supporting the security, stability, and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region.</p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
2/26/2012

Doug Dickey Apex Helicopters LLC 2810 Silhouette Bay

Dr. Pearland, TX 77584 Docket Management Facility U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE. West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590 **RE: Petition for Exemption of 14 CFR part 120** 
To Whom It May

Concern: Apex Helicopters LLC (“Apex”) seeks a petition for exemption of 14 CFR part 120. The mailing address and contact information for Apex is set forth below: Apex Helicopters LLC 2810 Silhouette Bay

Dr. Pearland, TX 77584 Email: doug@apexhelicopters.net Telephone: 832.317.5426 Specifically, Apex seeks exemption from 14 CFR part 120 (“part 120”) so that it does not have to implement a separate drug and alcohol testing program for its operations under 14 CFR part 135 (“part 135”)

. Apex already has a drug and alcohol testing program in place for its air tour operations under 14 CFR part 91.147 (“part 91 ”)

. As part of its drug and alcohol testing program under part 91 , Apex randomly tests four p il ots. Apex is currently

under certifications for its part 135 single pilot operating certificate

. Since this will be a single pilot operation, there will only one safety

sensitive employee. The pilot that will operate for Apex under part 135 is also part of Apex’s operations under part 91

. Thus, that pilot is already randomly

t ested under Apex’s drug and alcohol testing program for part 91

. M oreover, the company that administers Apex’s drug and alcohol testing program, Norton Medical Industries, has flagged Apex to ensure that it randomly t ests Apex’s part 135 pilot once a ye ar. Accordingl y, 100% of Apex’s part 135 pilots are tested every year. This provides a higher level of safety than what is required by p art 120 , namel y, that 25% of part 135 pilots are tested every

year. In addition, granting of this exemption would be in the public interest because it would eliminate the unnecessary duplication of testing and associated cost

.Below is a brief description for publishing in the Federal Register:

Apex He licopters LLCs eeks an exemption from 14 CFR part 120. Under this exemption, Apex Helicopters LLC will not have to implement a separate drug and alcohol testing program for its 14 CFR part 135 operations in lieu of its drug and alcohol testing program for its 14 CFR part 91.147 operations. Thank you for your consideration. Regards,

Doug Dickey General Manager Apex Helicopters LLC
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Shipments 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Average Rated Wattage 104 104 104

Percent Variable Speed (Assume ECM) 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%

Hours per Year 2,167 3,170 2,167

TWh 0.33 0.49 0.33

Percent Savings from ECM (Constant Full Load) 45% 45% 45%

TWh Savings (Switching to ECM, Full Load) 0.15 0.22 0.15

Lifetime 10 10 10

Quads Savings Over 30 Years 0.38 0.55 0.38

Electricity Cost $ 0.115 $ 0.115 $ 0.115

Annual Elec Cost Savings $ 11.66 $ 17.06 $ 11.66

Incremental Motor Cost $112.50 $112.50 $71.81

Payback (years) 9.6 6.6 6.2

Assumptions

Percent Potable Recirc 22% 22% 22%

Percent Hydronic Heating 78% 78% 78%

Operating Hours Potable Recirc 2,190 5,475 2,190

Operating Hours Hydronic Heating 2,160 2,520 2,160

Literature Range Min Mid Max

Potable Water Recirc 2,190 5,475 7,300

Hydronic Heating 2,160 2,520 3,000

Sources: John Siegenthaler presentation, NYSERDA report, TACO white papers, CA IOUs estimate, manufacturer estimates

Percent Savings Running ECM at 80% Speed 

Compared to AC Induction at Full Speed 73%

1/25 - 1/4 HP

Assume power draw is constant across loads.
Trial 4

 1,500,000

 104

2.6%

 3,170

0.49

45%

 0.22

 10

 0.55

$ 0.115

$ 17.06

$71.81

 4.2

22%

78%

 5,475

 2,520

ate, manufacturer estimates

stant across loads.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND 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 on Form 10-K of Moscow CableCom Corp. for the transition period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Warren Mobley, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Donald Miller-Jones, Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Moscow CableCom Corp.





March 31, 2005

/s/  WARREN MOBLEY

Warren Mobley

President and Chief Executive Officer



March 31, 2005

/s/ DONALD MILLER-JONES

Donald Miller-Jones

Chief Financial Officer





This certification shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40750 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus DEWELL KEITH FOLLMER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1-94-CR-137-1
- - - - - - - - - - June 21, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dewell Keith Follmer appeals the sentence he received following his conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms. We have reviewed the record and Follmer's brief and AFFIRM the district court's rulings, made during the sentencing hearing, on: (1) whether Follmer's offense level properly was increased because he obstructed justice; (2) whether Follmer should have received a reduction for acceptance of responsiblity;No. 95-40750 -2- (3) the number of firearms possessed by Follmer; and (4) whether Follmer used the firearm in relation to another felony. See United States v. Follmer , No. 1:94-CR-137 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 1995). Regarding the following arguments raised by Follmer for the first time on appeal, we find no error, plain or otherwise: (1) the calculation of Follmer's base offense level; (2) the alleged denial of due process brought about by the district court's refusal to reveal the location of the firearms; and (3) the applicability of the sporting/collecting reduction. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            8586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8586
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         62154
<OTHER-SE>                                      (68011)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8586
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (518)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (518)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
No. 86-814.

#### White Mountain Apache Tribe et al. *v.*Arizona State Transportation Board et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Ak-Chin Indian Community et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: Terri H. Petruska Page 1 of 1

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 26

December 21, 1984

Thomas J. Pike

Surface Mining Manager

Department of Natural Resources

Pouch 7-016

Anchorage, Alaska 99510

TOPIC: TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES/SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS/BRIDGES & 

STRUCTURES/AML ELIGIBILITY

INQUIRY: (1) To what extent are transportation facilities (railroad, conveyors, ports, etc.) part of 

a surface mining operation? And, to what extent does differing corporate ownership affect 

whether a transportation facility is part of a surface coal mining operation? (2) With regard to 

determining land and water eligible for reclamation pursuant to the Abandoned Mine Land 

Program, were any limits envisioned which could exclude bridges or other certain structures 

from eligibility under that program, assuming that these structures were built to facilitate coal 

mining?

SEARCH RESULTS:

Transportation Facilities/Surface Mining Operations

Since the promulgation of the federal interim regulations, the question of when a facility is to be 

considered a part of a surface mining operation has been a recurring problem. At this date, 

there does not appear to be a single, definitive answer. Judge Flannery, in his July, 1984 

ROUND I opinion, remanded to the Secretary for revision both 30 CFR Sec. 700.5 (surface coal 

mining operation) and Sec. 701.5 (coal preparation and coal processing). (IN RE: PERMANENT 

SURFACE MINING REGULATION LITIGATION II, ROUND I, Civ. No. 79-1144 (DDC July 6, 

1984))

A COALEX SIGNIFICANT ISSUE REPORT addressing past application of the phrase "surface 

coal mining operation" is being prepared and will follow as an addendum to this Report.

Bridges & Structures/Aml Eligibility

The only reference identified concerning AML funding for structures addressed housing 

construction. SMCRA Sec. 407(h) states that "No part of the funds provided under this title may 

be used to pay the actual construction cost of housing."

No information specifically referencing AML eligibility for bridges or coal mining structures was 

identified. Nor did we find a prior situation in which AML funds have been used for that purpose.

In the current FY85 appropriations, Congress has approved seed money for subsidence 

insurance. Presently under agency consideration are proposed regulations to allow the 

subsidence insurance money to be used for structures as well as land.
Order filed April 10, 20 1 4

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________ NO. 14

- 1 4

- 0 0 119

- CV

______________ IN RE EDWARD R. NEWSOME , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 24410



### O R D E R

This court issued its opinion in this case on February 13, 201 4

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.1 provides for the filing of a motion for rehea ring within
fifteen days after a court of appeals’ judgment or order is rendered. Tex. R. App.
Proc. 49.1. Relator timely filed his motion for rehearing on February 27, 2014.
This court denied relator’s motion for rehearing on March 11, 2014. Relator filed a motion for rehearing en banc on April 7 , 201 4 , more than 15 day s after this court’s
denial of relator’s timely

- filed motion for rehearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.7.

“A court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing or en2 banc reconsideration if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion.” Tex. R. App. P. 49.8. A party seeking an extension of time in the court of appeals is required to file a motion specifically stating the facts that reasonably explain the need for an extension. Rios
v. Calhoon , 889 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1994) ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) ( requiring motion to extend time to include facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension). No motion for extension of time was
filed in this case , however.

The Texas Supreme Court has consistently treated minor procedural mis takes with leniency to preserv e appellate ri ghts. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 616

− 17 (Tex. 1997) (implying extension of time when a party perfects an appeal in good faith within the 15

- day period for filing an extension)

. Thus, a motion for extension of time can be implied when a motio n for rehearing en banc is
filed within the 15

- day period for filing a motion for extension of time if the appellant thereafter files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b)(1) that contain s a reasonable explanation to support the late filing

. See Houser v. McElveen, 243 S.W.3d 646, 647 (Tex. 2008 ) ; see also Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Ctr

. Assoc.,
Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 807 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (implying extension but requiring reasonable explanation)

. Accordingly, unless relator fi les with the clerk of this court a motion that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b)(1) and provides a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the party’s motion for rehearing en banc
within 10 days of the date of this order, the court will deny the motion for rehearing
en banc as untimely.

PER CURIAM