alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 212 

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to 

provide a process for expediting congressional review of an Indian tribe’s 

funding agreement at the Indian tribe’s request, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide a process for expediting congressional review of an Indian tribe’s funding agreement 

at the Indian tribe’s request, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Expediting Funding 

5 For Efficient Contracting Tribes Act’’ or the ‘‘EFFECT 

6 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 212 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED REVIEW OF INDIAN TRIBE FUNDING 

2 AGREEMENTS. 

3 Section 403 of the Indian Self-Determination and 

4 Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458cc) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subsections (g) through (l) 

6 as subsections (h) through (m), respectively; 

7 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(g) EXPEDITED REVIEW.— 

10 ‘‘(1) An Indian tribe that is party to a proposed 

11 funding agreement may submit a written request for 

12 expedited review of the agreement to the Committee 

13 on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee 

14 on Natural Resources of the House of Representa15 tives. 

16 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding subsection (f), upon re17 ceipt of a written notice, sent by the chairman and 

18 ranking minority member of such committee of the 

19 Senate and the chair and ranking minority member 

20 of such committee of the House of Representatives, 

21 that indicates such Members’ assent to an Indian 

22 tribe’s request under paragraph (1), the Secretary 

23 shall— 

24 ‘‘(A) deem part or all of the 90-day review 

25 period under subsection (f) waived, if so speci26 fied in the notice; and 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 212 IH

1 ‘‘(B) set or amend the effective date of the 

2 proposed agreement, if so specified in the no3 tice.’’; and 

4 (3) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘Native Amer5 ican Affairs’’ and inserting ‘‘Indian, Insular and 

6 Alaska Native Affairs’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

4/18/13

Mr. David K. Paylor

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Director Paylor:

On April 2, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the 

Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) pertaining to the removal of the following articles from the Virginia SIP: Emission Standards 

for Asphalt Paving Operations (Article 39), Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Container Spillage 

(Article 42), Emission Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (Article 39), and 

Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Article 50). EPA has determined that the submittal is 

administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking 

Notice (DFRN) action. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Gregory Becoat, Air 

Program Planning, at (215) 814-2036, or at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. He is the principal contact for this 

rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division
#### First Wisconsin Trust Company and others, Respondents, vs. O’Donnell, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Francis W. Rausch*and *Harold J. McGrath,*both of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *Lecher, Michael, Whyte & Spohn,*attorneys, and *Herman E. Friedrich*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on March 7, 1939.
APPENDIX B 

FISCAL NOTE FOR PROPOSED RULES 

Rule Title: 45CSR14 -"Permits for Construction and Maior Modification of Major 

Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant 

Deteriorafion" 

Type of Rule: X Legislative Interpretive Procedural 

Agency: Division of Air Oualit y 

Address: 601 57' Street SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Phone Number: (304) 926-047 Email: t,rynmv.1.mowrei;nITUn°~eo; 

Fiscal Note Summary 

Summarize in a clear and concise manner what impact this measure 

will have on costs and revenues of state government. 

No impact above that resulting from currently applicabte federal emission standards. 

Fiscal Note Detail 

Show over-all effect in Item 1 and 2 and, in Item 3, give an explanation of 

Breakdown by fiscal year, including long-range effect. 

FISCAL YEAR 

Effect of Proposal 

 2012 

Increase/Decrease 

use "- 

2013 

Increase/Decrease 

use "- 

Fiscal Year 

(Upon Full Irnplementation) 

1. Estimated Total Cost $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 

Personal Services 0 0 0 

Current Expenses 0 0 0 

Repairs & Alterations 0 0 0 

Assets 0 0 0 

Equipment 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 

2. Estimated Total Revenues 0 0 0 
Rule Title: 45CSR14 -"Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major 

Stationarv Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Si i gt ficant i

Deterioration" 

3. Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect): 

Please include any increase or decrease in fees in your estimated total revenues. 

Costs an6cipated to be incurred by revision to this rule are included in prior cost 

estimates prepared for state implementation of Title V of the Clean Air Act, as 

amended, under 45CSR30. Full Title V program approval was issued by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency on November 19, 2001. 

MEMORANDUM 

Please identify any areas of vagueness, technical defects, reasons the proposed 

rule would not have a fiscal impact, and/or any special issues not captured elsewhere on 

this form. 

Date: June 1, 2011 

John A. Benedict, Director
# CA2004252EN.01003401.xml

| 12.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 252/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 252/34

---

Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for a Director-General in DG Joint Research Centre (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) COM/R/7022/04

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 234 A of 21 September 2004
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 234 A of 21 September 2004

(2004/C 252 A/11)

On page 41, ‘Appointment and conditions of employment’:

for:

for:

‘The Director General will be selected and appointed by the Commission according to its selection and recruitment procedures. A shortlist of candidates will be called for an interview by the Commission's Consultative Committee on Appointments and an assessment centre run by external recruitment consultants.

Salaries and conditions of employment are those laid down in the Staff Regulations for A*15 grade officials of the European Communities.

Applicants should note the requirement under the Staff Regulations for all new staff to complete successfully a nine-month probationary period.’

read:

read:

‘The Director General will be selected and appointed by the Commission according to its selection and recruitment procedures. A shortlist of candidates will be called for an interview by the Commission's Consultative Committee on Appointments and the Board of Governors of the JRC and an assessment centre run by external recruitment consultants.

Salaries and conditions of employment are those laid down in the Staff Regulations for A*15 grade officials of the European Communities.

Applicants should note the requirement under the Staff Regulations for all new staff to complete successfully a nine-month probationary period.’

---
# C_2004300EN.01001002.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

in Case C-312/02: Kingdom of Sweden v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Action for annulment - EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Support for producers of certain arable crops - Common organisation of the market in beef and veal)

(2004/C 300/20)

Language of the case: Swedish

In Case C-312/02: Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, lodged at the Court on 4 September 2002, Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: K. Renman) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Simonsson) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 06-40604

Summary Calendar

_______________________

HORTENCIA MATA; ROGELIO MATA,

Plaintiffs–Appellants,

versus

STATE FARM LLOYDS; STATE FARM LLOYDS INC.,

Defendants–Appellees.

__________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. 7:05–CV–392–RHH)

__________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Matas appeal the district court’s order of dismissal as to Defendant State Farm

Lloyds Inc. and the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Defendant State Farm
2

Lloyds. This case is one of several related cases, all of which the district court dismissed on

the same basis: that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the insurance company’s

attorney-in-fact and that the statute of limitations had run by the time the plaintiffs served

the insurance company with process. As to the order of dismissal of the attorney-in-fact, we

affirm for the reasons stated in our disposition of Martinez v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-

40442, 2006 WL 3147505. As to the entry of summary judgment, we likewise affirm

because the Matas’ original petition, filed in state court on January 31, 2003, estops them

fromdenying that their claims had already accrued–and therefore the limitation period began

to run–at the time they filed their lawsuit. The Matas did not serve State Farm Lloyds until

August 2005, after the statute of limitations had run. See id.

AFFIRMED.
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post

- consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 4/18/13

Mr. David K. Paylor Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Director Paylor :

On April 2, 2013

, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) pertaining to the removal of the following articles from the Virginia SIP: Emission Standards for Asphalt Paving Operations (Article 39), Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Container Spillage (Article 42), Emission Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (Article 39), and Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Article 50) . EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and t echnically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Gregory Becoat, Air Program Planning , at (215) 814

- 2036, or at becoat.gregory@epa .gov. He is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division
# C_2004262EN.01005501.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/55

---

Action brought on 13 August 2004 by Stardust Marine S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-344/04)

(2004/C 262/101)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by Stardust Marine S.A., established in Paris, represented by Bernard Vatier, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that European Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999, which orders the French State to recover the alleged State aid of FRF 600 million from STARDUST, is vitiated by illegality, and that that illegality is of such a kind as to engage the Commission's liability under Article 288 of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that European Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999, which orders the French State to recover the alleged State aid of FRF 600 million from STARDUST, is vitiated by illegality, and that that illegality is of such a kind as to engage the Commission's liability under Article 288 of the EC Treaty;

| — | Consequently, order the European Commission to pay to Stardust the sum of EUR 112 635 569.73 in damages, with statutory interest from the date of the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, order the European Commission to pay to Stardust the sum of EUR 112 635 569.73 in damages, with statutory interest from the date of the present application;

| — | Order that the forthcoming decision shall be provisionally enforceable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the forthcoming decision shall be provisionally enforceable;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs in the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs in the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the unlawful nature of Decision 2000/513/EC cannot be disputed, since that decision has already been annulled by judgment of the Court of Justice EC of 16 May 2002 in Case C-482/99. That unlawfulness is, the applicant submits, sufficient to engage the Commission's non-contractual liability under Article 288 EC. The applicant also claims that, even supposing that the decision at issue were a legislative act containing economic policy measures, the Commission would have infringed a superior rule of law protecting individuals by adopting a decision adversely affecting the applicant without legal or factual basis. Therefore, the applicant argues that the Commission is required to pay damages to it.

As concerns the harm allegedly sustained, the applicant states that STARDUST was the subject of a court-supervised recovery scheme by judgment of the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris. The cessation of payments which led to that judgment is the direct consequence of the debt arising from the Commission's decision. The harm sustained is the amount of the deficit in STARDUST's assets.

---
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00001

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BRANDY LYNN ESTES AND JEFFERY

BRIAN ESTES AND IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.E. AND M.B.E., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 2 02nd Distri ct Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18D1319

- 202

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

The appellant ha s filed a motion with this Court seeking to voluntarily dism iss t h is

appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is

granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal

.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 14, 2022

Dat e Decided: June 15, 2022
July 2021

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Vegetative Barrier (Code 601) 

A vegetative barrier is a permanent strip of stiff, dense

vegetation established along the general contour of slopes

or across concentrated flow areas. 

Practice Information 

Vegetative barriers are used to reduce sheet and rill

erosion, manage water flow, stabilize steep slopes, trap

sediment, or reduce ephmeral gully erosion. 

This practice applies to all eroding areas, including cropland, grazing land, forest land, farmsteads,

mined land, and construction sites. 

Whenused to reduce sheet and rill erosion, vegetative barriers are established along the contour and

at intervals necessary to meet erosion reduction goals. 

When used to control ephemeral gully erosion, vegetative barriers are established across

concentrated flow areas perpendicular to the direction of water flow. 

Recommended plant species must be adapted to local soil and climate conditions; be easily

established, long-lived, and manageable; and must maintain the necessary stiffness to meet the

intended purpose. 

Common AssociatedPractices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) VegetativeBarrier(Code 601) is commonly applied with

other conservation practices such as NRCS CPS Pest Management Conservation System (Code

595), Nutrient Management (Code 590), Conservation Crop Rotation (Code 328), and residue

management practices. 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# L_2015252EN.01001101.xml

| 29.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 252/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 252/11

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1724

of 23 September 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Silter (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Silter’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Silter’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Silter’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Silter’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Silter’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 September 2015.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 142, 29.4.2015, p. 29.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
exh4-1.htm


Exhibit 4.1





	  



	 	  









 


 




 



January 31, 2011


 








	
  

	
Re:

	
Common Stock and Warrant Purchase Agreement Dated as of March 28, 2002, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”)












Gentlemen:







Reference is made to the Purchase Agreement and the common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant thereto and currently outstanding as listed on Exhibit A attached to this letter (the “Warrants”).







The Warrants have an expiration date, as extended, of January 31, 2011 (the “Expiration Date”).  The Company has extended the Expiration Date to March 31, 2011.  The Company represents and warrants to each of the holders of the Warrants that all necessary corporate action to authorize the extension of the Expiration Date has been taken and the Company has full power and authority to issue this letter.







For our records, please acknowledge receipt of this letter and your consent to the extension of the Expiration Date of the Warrants to March 31, 2011 by countersigning this letter where indicated below.











	
EVERGREEN ENERGY INC.


	  
	  
	
By:______________________________


	
    Thomas B. Stoner,


          Chief Executive Officer











 


 




 





  









1225 17th Street, Suite 1300


Denver, CO USA 80202-5506


www.evgenergy.com




  





  











  










	  



	 	  









 
































The undersigned investors acknowledge and agree to the terms of this letter:













	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
 

	  	  	  	
 


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	    	 	
 

	 	 	 	    By:  {Warrant holder}
	 	  	
 

	  	  	  	
 


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
 

	  	 	  	  	  	
                                                    


	  	  	
 

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  





 


 


 


 




 














1225 17th Street, Suite 1300


Denver, CO USA 80202-5506


www.evgenergy.com




  





  











  






 




	  



	 	  









 







EXHIBIT A







Outstanding Warrants







 


 


 







 


 


 












1225 17th Street, Suite 1300


Denver, CO USA 80202-5506


www.evgenergy.com