alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5109-5110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01802]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9019-3]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-
7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 01/19/2015 
Through 01/23/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20150019, Draft EIS, USACE, NC, Town of Ocean Isle Beach 
Shoreline Management Project, Comment Period Ends: 03/09/2015, Contact: 
Tyler Crumbley 910-251-4170
EIS No. 20150020, Draft EIS, NOAA, 00, PROGRAMMATIC--Habitat 
Restoration Activities Implemented throughout the Coastal United 
States, Comment Period Ends: 03/20/2015, Contact: Frederick Sutter 301-
427-8600
EIS No. 20150021, Final EIS, NMFS, 00, Recreational Red Snapper Sector 
Separation, Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef 
Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, Review Period Ends: 03/02/2015, 
Contact: Roy Crabtree 727-824-5301
EIS No. 20150022, Draft Supplement, BOEM, 00, Gulf of Mexico Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sales 2016 and 2017, Central 
Planning Area Lease Sales 241 and 247; Eastern Planning Area Lease 
Sales 226, Comment Period Ends: 03/16/2015, Contact: Gary Goeke 504-
736-3233
EIS No. 20150023, Final Supplement, USN, 00, Surveillance Towed Array 
Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar Systems, Review 
Period Ends: 03/02/2015, Contact: Cynthia Morgan 703-695-8266 EIS No. 
20150024, Final EIS, FHWA, ME, I-395/Route 9 Transportation System, 
Review Period Ends: 03/02/2015, Contact: Mark Hasselmann 207-512-4913
EIS No. 20150025, Final EIS, FERC, 00, Algonquin Incremental Market 
Project, Review Period Ends: 03/02/2015, Contact: Maggie Suter 202-502-
6463
EIS No. 20150026, Final Supplement, USFS, WY, Long Term Special Use 
Authorization for Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to Use National 
Forest System Lands for their Winter Elk Management Activities at 
Alkali Creek Feedground, Review Period Ends: 03/16/2015, Contact: Pam 
Bode 307-739-5513

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140354, Draft EIS, USACE, FL, South Central Palm Beach Island 
Comprehensive Shoreline Stabilization Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/
25/2015, Contact: Garett Lips 561-674-2421
Revision to FR Notice Published 12/12/2014; Extending Comment Period 
from 01/26/2015 to 2/25/2015


[[Page 5110]]


    Dated: January 27, 2015.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-01802 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
RACT SIP Revision Page F- I 

NH DES January 2008 

Appendix F 

Certification of Public Hearing 
Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner 

January 2=I, 2005 

1 Hereby Certify : 

That, in accordance with the provisions of N.H. Administrative Rule Env-A 204.01(b), 

and section I 10(a) of the Clean Air Act, as anriended, public notice was given specifying that a 

public hearing on a proposed revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) to certify 

reasonably available control technolo;e~ (RACT) requirements under the 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) was to be held on October 20, 2006 at 10:00 

a .m. in Room 1 1 1 of tile offices of tile NH Department of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen 

Drive, Concord, NH. The notice was published at least 30 days prior to the date of said hearing 

in a newspaper of general circulation . The notice stated that a copy of the proposed SIP revision 

may be obtained from the Department upon request . 

That the public hearing was held on October 20, 2006 at 10 :00 a .m. in Room 111 ofthe 

offices of the NH Department of Environmental Setwices, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord. NH, in 

accordance with the public notice. 

That a complete record of the public hearing held on October 20, 2006 is available on 

tape at the offices of the NH Department of Envlronnlental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, 

NH . 

That the above statetnents are true to tile best of tny knowledge and belief. 

Robert R. Scott 

Director . Air Resources Division 

Dated January 2=1. 2008 

The State of New Hampshire 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

DES Web site : www.des .nh.gov 

P.O. Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 

Telephone: (603) 271-1370 " Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udicial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: October 27, 2016 5 21605

________________________________ In the Matter of NICHOLAS SS., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent. MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Respondent; NICHOLAS SS., Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 13, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Peter J. Scagnelli, Albany, for appellant. Meghan M. Manion, County Attorney, Amsterdam (William E. Lorman of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Devine, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Montgomery County (Cortese, J.), entered December 22, 2014, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, extended respondent's period of supervision. Petitioner commenced this juvenile delinquency proceeding in 2014. Family Court thereafter ordered, upon the consent of the parties, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal that did not require any admissions on the part of respondent (see Family Ct Act § 315.3 [3]). Respondent was, however, ordered to comply with certain terms and submit to probation supervision until April 1, 2015. Family Court restored the-2- 521605

matter to the calendar after it became clear that respondent's father was obstructing the supervision efforts of the Montgomery County Department of Probation. Family Court addressed the situation by entreating the father to be "a little less contrary and a little more cooperative" and extended the period of supervision to June 1, 2015. Respondent appeals from the order extending the period of supervision. The extended period of supervision expired on June 1, 2015, at which point the underlying petition was "deemed to have been dismissed by [Family Court] in the furtherance of justice" (Family Ct Act § 315.3 [1]). Respondent acknowledges that no adjudication exists that could affect his legal rights under these circumstances, and any issues relating to the appealed-from order are therefore moot (see Matter of Ako LL. [Carla MM.], 139 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2016]; Matter of Edward V. v Crystal W., 45 AD3d 1213, 1215 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]). After reviewing the contentions advanced by counsel for respondent, as well as those raised by respondent in a pro se supplemental brief, we are unpersuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). 1 Thus, the appeal is dismissed. McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

1 Respondent obtained the permission of this Court to submit a pro se supplemental brief and prepared one with the assistance of his father. Regardless of the advisability of the father providing that assistance, we do not agree with petitioner that it was unlawful for a custodial parent to assist an infant party in this manner or that the pro se supplemental brief should be disregarded (see CPLR 321 [a]; 1201; Family Ct Act § 165).-3- 521605

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the  accompanying  Annual  Report of Electronic Media
Central  Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31,
2003  (the  "Report"),  I,  George  Paul  Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report 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

     (2)     The  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  June  25,  2003
                              /s/  George  Paul  Morris
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              George  Paul  Morris
                              Chairman  and  Chief  Executive  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-K  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.









                                                                      Exhibit 99
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SERGIO PEREZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-15-00253-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20130C07785)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until December 22, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. James D. Lucas, the Appellant’s Attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before December 22, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25

th day of November, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1788 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1788

To extend the Vietnam Service Medal to veterans of the Armed Forces who 
          participated in the S.S. Mayaguez rescue operation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2017

  Mr. Meadows (for himself and Ms. Gabbard) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the Vietnam Service Medal to veterans of the Armed Forces who 
          participated in the S.S. Mayaguez rescue operation.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Recognizing Mayaguez Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. AWARD OF VIETNAM SERVICE MEDAL TO VETERANS WHO PARTICIPATED IN 
              MAYAGUEZ RESCUE OPERATION.

    (a) Award Authorized.--The Secretary of the military department 
concerned shall, upon the application by or on behalf of an individual 
who is an eligible veteran, award that individual the Vietnam Service 
Medal, notwithstanding any otherwise applicable requirements for the 
award of that medal. Any such award shall be made in lieu of any Armed 
Forces Expeditionary Medal awarded the individual for the individual's 
participation in the Mayaguez rescue operation.
    (b) Treatment of Deceased Veterans.--In the case of a veteran who 
is deceased, the application described in subsection (a) may be 
submitted by the next of kin of the veteran.
    (c) Eligible Veteran.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``eligible veteran'' means a veteran of the Armed Forces--
            (1) who was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 
        for participation in military operations known as the Mayaguez 
        rescue operation of May 12-15, 1975; or
            (2) who participated in such operation.
                                 <all>
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1967 

To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize pumped storage 

hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS) 

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

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize 

pumped storage hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. 

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 ‘‘Bureau of Reclamation 

5 Pumped Storage Hydropower Development Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1967 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR PUMPED STORAGE HYDROPOWER 

2 DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING MULTIPLE BU3 REAU OF RECLAMATION RESERVOIRS. 

4 Section 9(c)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of 

5 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)(1)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘and pumped storage hydropower development utilizing 

7 multiple Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs’’ after ‘‘includ8 ing small conduit hydropower development’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Troy Headley, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1007]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence was properly denied for reasons stated in the decision by the suppression court. The contention of defendant that he was denied the benefit of his plea bargain has not been preserved for our review *(see, People v Moore,*155 AD2d 696). The record establishes that defendant agreed with the sentencing court’s final determination that the bargained for sentence was legally impossible, and neither objected to the sentence imposed as violative of the sentence commitment nor moved to vacate his plea *(see, People v Ellis,*162 AD2d 701, *lv denied*76 NY2d 892). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, *8584th Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsManagement Directives

# Volume 5 - Governmental Relations and Public Affairs

 

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, October 5, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Volume 1
          - Volume 2
          - Volume 3
          - Volume 4
          - Volume 5
          - Volume 6
          - Volume 7
          - Volume 8
          - Volume 9
          - Volume 10
          - Volume 11
          - Volume 12
          - Volume 13
          - Volume 14

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, October 5, 2023
#### Harry N. Smith *vs.*David B. Jones.

Penobscot County.

Decided February 6, 1922.

An action by the husband for alienation of his wife’s affections. The declaration contains two counts, one alleging criminal conversation and the con*576sequent alienation of affections, the second alleging alienation by persuasion and craft and the separation of husband and wife. The jury in answer to specific questions found for the plaintiff under the first count and assessed damages in the sum of $1,416.66. It comes before this court on a motion for a new trial on the usual grounds. An examination of the evidence does hot disclose that the verdict of the jury was manifestly wrong, nor can the damages awarded be said to be excessive in amount. Entry will be. Motion overruled.

*Merrill & Merrill,*for plaintiff.

*B. W. Blanchard,*for defendant.
# L_2015013EN.01001301.xml

| 20.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 13/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 13/13

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1301/2014 of 18 November 2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to the ‘energy’ subsystem of the rail system in the Union

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 356 of 12 December 2014
  )

On page 217, Annex, Appendix D — Specification of the pantograph gauge, point D.1.1.3 —Symbols and abbreviations, table, last row:

for:

| ‘Sj | Sum of the (horizontal) safety margins covering some random phenomena (j = 1, 2 or 3) for the pantograph gauge | m’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘Sj

Sum of the (horizontal) safety margins covering some random phenomena (j = 1, 2 or 3) for the pantograph gauge

m’

read:

| ‘Σj | Sum of the (horizontal) safety margins covering some random phenomena (j = 1, 2 or 3) for the pantograph gauge | m’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘Σj

Sum of the (horizontal) safety margins covering some random phenomena (j = 1, 2 or 3) for the pantograph gauge

m’

on page 221, Annex, Appendix D — Specification of the pantograph gauge, point D.1.2.1.7 —Allowances:

for:

‘The sum of the abovementioned allowances is covered by Sj.’

read:

‘The sum of the abovementioned allowances is covered by Σj.’

on page 222, Annex, Appendix D — Specification of the pantograph gauge, point D.1.4 — Calculation of maximum lateral deviation of contact wire:

for:

‘
  dl
  = bw,c
  - bw
  - b′ h,mec

  ’

read:

‘
  dl
  = bw,c
  - bw
  – b′ h,mec

  ’

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7687

WILBERT DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of

Correction; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-99-2059-AW)

Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbert Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Ann Norman Bosse, Jason Frederick Trumpbour, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

November 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on November 9, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. Hutchinson, No. CA-99-

2059-AW (D. Md. Nov. 9, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument and

deny Davis’s motion for the appointment of counsel because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-20-1997
<CASH>                                       1,255,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    583,564
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,707,284
<PP&E>                                      16,868,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,586,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,609,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,925,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,136,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,586,732
<SALES>                                     11,554,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,554,633
<CGS>                                        4,288,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,395,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,127,434
<INCOME-TAX>                                   440,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            686,509
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   686,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>