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

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID DoD-2015-OS-0013]

# AGENCY:

Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing Implementation of the Real Property Master Plan at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action to implement a Real Property Master Plan at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. The EA has been prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969). In addition, the EA complies with DLA Regulation 1000.22. DLA has determined that the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the human environment within the context of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.

# DATES:

                        Public comments will be accepted on or before March 12, 2015. Comments received by the end of the 30-day period will be considered when preparing the final version of the document. The EA is available electronically at                         *http://www.dla.mil/​InstallationSupport/​Documents/​DEASanJoaquinRPMP102914.pdf.*

# ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments to one of the following:
      -  Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.                          Follow the instructions for submitting comments.                    
      -  Mail:                          Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, 2nd floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ira Silverberg at 703-767-0705 during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email:                         *ira.silverberg@dla.mil.*

Dated: February 4, 2015.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2015-02645 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report (the "Report")
of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,

|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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.



|By | /s/ Arthur L. Smith     | 
|-- | ----------------------- | 
|   | Arthur L. Smith         | 
|   | President and           | 
|   | Chief Executive Officer | 
|   | September 30, 2015      |
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In Re: Michael Dowden

No. 06

- 13

- 00263

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Co urt’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition

.

RENDERED JANUARY 2, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Contour Farming, Cover Crop, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Residue and Tillage Management-Mulch Till, Residue and Tillage Management-No Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed, Residue and Tillage Management-Ridge Till, Residue Management-Seasonal.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
HomeRadioactive WasteStorage of Spent Nuclear FuelConsolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF)Holtec International – HI-STORE CISF

# Public Meetings

        - Pre-application Meetings
        December 9, 2015 – Introductory Meeting to discuss proposed HI-STORE CIS facility
- Meeting Notice 
- Presentation Slides 
- Meeting Summary
December 6, 2016 – Meeting to discuss proposed Environmental Report for HI-STORE CIS
- Meeting Notice 
- Presentation Slides
- Meeting Summary
February 1, 2017 – Meeting to discuss proposed Safety Analysis Report for HI-STORE CIS
- Meeting Notice
- Presentation Slides 
- Meeting Summary
February 15, 2017 – Closed Meeting to discuss Physical Security Plan for HI-STORE CIS
- Meeting Notice
February 22-23, 2017 – Pre-submission Readiness Audit of Holtec HI-STORE CIS draft license application
- Audit Plan
- Audit Summary

        - Acceptance Review 
        August 21, 2017 – Meeting to discuss RSIs related to Environmental Report and SAR Chapter 2 for HI-STORE CIS license application
- Meeting Notice
- Presentation Slides
- Meeting Summary

        - Public Scoping Meetings and Open Houses
        **NEW** 
Scoping Summary Report 
April 25, 2018 – Rockville, MD
- Meeting Notice
- Presentation Slides
English
Spanish

- Handouts
Fact sheet 
- English
- Spanish
How to Comment
- English
- Spanish

- Meeting Transcript
April 30, 2018 – Roswell, NM 
- Meeting Notice
- Presentation Slides
English
Spanish

- Handouts
Fact sheet 
- English
- Spanish
How to Comment
- English
- Spanish

- Meeting Transcript
May 1, 2018 – Hobbs, NM
- Meeting Notice
- Presentation Slides
English
Spanish

- Handouts
Fact sheet 
- English
- Spanish
How to Comment
- English
- Spanish

- Meeting Transcript
May 3, 2018 – Carlsbad, NM
- Meeting Notice
- Presentation Slides
English
Spanish

- Handouts
Fact sheet 
- English
- Spanish
How to Comment
- English
- Spanish

- Meeting Transcript
May 21, 2018 – Gallup, NM 
Meeting Notice
Presentation Slides 
English
Spanish

Handouts 
Fact sheet 
English
Spanish

How to Comment 
English
Spanish

Meeting Transcript

May 22, 2018 – Albuquerque, NM 
Meeting Notice
Presentation Slides 
English
Spanish

Handouts 
Fact sheet 
English 
Spanish

How to Comment 
English
Spanish

Meeting Transcript

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 17, 2019
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM May 2016

Fish Raceway or Tank (Code 398) 

1. A channel or tank with a continuous

flow of water constructed or used for 

high-density fish production.

D.2 (+/-) Water quantity 

and quality for fish 

production.

C.1 (+/-) Income and income stability 

(individuals and community) 

Initial setting: Area where 

continuous water flow is 

needed for fish production. 

Start

D.1 (+) Aquatic 

habitat 

I.2 (+/-) Flows in 

water course

I.4 (+/-) 

Channel/shoreline/

streambank erosion

Erosion and sediment 

Control Measures

I.3 (+/-) Water supply 

C.2 (+/-) Water 

quality

I.1 (+) Population of 

target species 

D.3 (+) Cost for 

installation and 

maintenance 

D.5 (-) 

Sedimentation

I.6 (+/-) Groundwater 

table

I.7 (+/-) 

Availability of 

water for other 

uses

I.8 (-) 

Net 

return 

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Dike (356) 

Grassed Waterway (412)

Structure for Water Control (587) 

Open Channel (582)

Water quality practices

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2014

 Surface Roughening (609)

1. Tillage forms clods sufficient to produce 

random roughness capable of reducing wind 

erosion during the management period by at 

least 25 percent.

Initial setting: Agricultural lands 

where wind erosion is a concern 

due to lack of surface cover and 

soils have a surface layer 

suitable for clod formation 

I.1 (+) 

Visibility

C.1 (+) Air quality

I.2 (-) Particulate

matter less than 

I0 micrometers in 

diameter (PM 10)

and less than 2.5 

micrometers in 

diameter (PM 2.5)

D.1 (-) Soil loss due 

to wind erosion

D.9 (-) Sediment 

deposition

D.4 (+) Cost of 

implementation, 

(+) Use of fuel, 

equipment, and labor

I.4 (-) Crop 

damage from 

wind-blown 

particles

I.10 (+) Capacity 

of outlets, water 

bodies, and 

conveyances

I.5 (+) Land 

productivity D.3 (+) Infiltration

I.15 (+)

Production 

costs

Minimize need for Surface Roughening 

through the application of:

 Cross Wind Ridges (589A)

 Herbaceous Wind Barriers (603)

 Residue Management (329, 344, 

345, 346)

 Windbreaks/Shelterbelts (380, 650)

I.13 (+) Potential 

for transport of 

pollutants to 

ground waters

Pathway

Nutrient 

Management (590)

Integrated Pest 

Management (595)

C.2 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individual and 

community) 

I.6 (+) Production 

potential

I.11 (-) 

Maintenance 

costs

I.12 (+/-) Net 

return

I.7 (+) Potential 

income

D.2 (+) Soil 

organic matter

I.8 (+) Soil 

quality

I.3 (-) Cost of 

compliance with 

future regulation

I.14 (+/-) 

Water quality

Start

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                              JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
----                                              ----------------------------
<S>                                               <C>
Phoenix International A.P. Limited                     New Zealand
Phoenix EMEA Limited                                   United Kingdom
Phoenix International (Australia) Pty. Limited         Australia
Phoenix International New York, Inc. (formerly         New York
known as Servers On-Line, Inc.), a majority-owned
subsidiary of registrant
Phoenix International Software (Singapore) Ptc.        Singapore, Malaysia
Ltd.
Phoenix FSC Inc.                                       U.S. Virgin Islands
</TABLE>
# C_2004314EN.01001301.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 October 2004

in Case T-1/02, Robert Polinsky v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Action for damages - Exposure to asbestos - Occupational disease - Damage)

(2004/C 314/32)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-1/02, Robert Polinsky, an official of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Thionville (France), represented by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer, against Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification pursuant to Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Marshall W. Pagon, the Chief Executive    Officer of Pegasus Communications Corporation, hereby certify to the best    of my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,    that the Form 10-K of Pegasus Communications Corporation for the annual period    ended December 31, 2005 (the “December 31, 2005 Form 10-K”), which    this certification accompanies, 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 information contained in the December 31, 2005 Form 10-K fairly presents,    in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations    of Pegasus Communications Corporation. 

A signed original of this written    statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pegasus Communications    Corporation and will be retained by Pegasus Communications Corporation and    furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Dated: April 6, 2006

/s/ Marshall W. PagonMarshall W. Pagon

----
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

D.1 (+) Infiltration

Notes: 

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

D.3 (+) Contaminants 

introduced to 

groundwater

I.1 (-) Surface runoff I.9 (+) Down 

gradient surface 

discharges

1.4 (+/-) Stream 

baseflow

C.3 (+/-) 

Biodiversity

I.10 (+/-) Production 

potential, ability to 

manage and use 

lands productively

I.3 (-) Sediment 

and particulate 

contaminants to 

surface waters

1.8 (+) Particulate and dissolved 

contaminants (including nutrients) 

to to ground water

C.1 (+/-) Quality 

of surfacce waters

I.7 (+/-) Stream 

stability

C.6 (+/-) Income and income 

stability (individuals and community)

Vertical Drain (630)

Initial setting: Any land use area 

having insufficient outlets for surface 

and/or subsurface drainage system.

Start

I.13 (+) Equipment 

operation and 

maintenance costs

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Pathway

A well, pipe, pit, or bore in porous underground strata 

into which surface or subsurface drainage water is 

dischared.

D.2 (-) Streamflow and peak 

discharge

I.5 (+/-)Aquifer 

recharge

D.5 (+) Cost for installation and 

maintenance 

D.4 (+) Subsurface 

water level

I.12 (+/-) 

Net 

return to 

producer

I.6 (-) Riparian habitat

I.2 (-) Soil erosin

C.2 (+/-) Aquatic habitat

C.4 (+/-) Fishable and swimmable waters, health and safety 

issues for humans, domestic and wild animals.

C.5 (+/-) Quality of 

ground waters

I.11 (+/-) 

Income

Sinkhole Treatment (527)

Sediment Basin (350)

Nutrient Management (590)

Pest Management Conservation System (595)
# C_2005006EN.01001202.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-126/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public contracts - Waste transport services - Procedure without prior publication of a contract notice - Contract concluded by a contracting authority in relation to an economic activity subject to competition - Contract concluded by a contracting authority in order to be able to submit an offer in a tender procedure - Proof of the service provider's capabilities - Possibility of relying on the capabilities of a third party - Subcontracting - Consequences of a judgment finding a failure to fulfil an obligation)

(2005/C 6/21)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-126/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 March 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner) and Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing assisted by H.-J. Prieß) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, as the contract for the transport of waste from the discharge points in the Donauwald region to the Munich-North thermal power station was awarded by the City of Munich in breach of the procedural rules laid down in Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of that directive, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, as the contract for the transport of waste from the discharge points in the Donauwald region to the Munich-North thermal power station was awarded by the City of Munich in breach of the procedural rules laid down in Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of that directive, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

1

---
# C_2004267EN.01000302.xml

| 30.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/3522 — DANISH CROWN/HK/SOKOLOW)

(2004/C 267/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 September 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3522. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3522. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6953-6954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13213-003]


Lock 14 Hydro Partners, LLC; Kentucky Heidelberg Hydroelectric 
Project; Notice of Revised Restricted Service List

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
(Commission)

[[Page 6954]]

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides that, to 
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the 
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular 
phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list should 
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment 
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active 
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for 
which the list is established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Kentucky State Historic 
Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
(Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 
CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470f), to prepare a 
Programmatic Agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible 
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places at the 
proposed Heidelberg Hydroelectric Project.
    On November 21, 2013, Commission staff established a restricted 
service list for the Heidelberg Hydroelectric Project. Since that time, 
changes have occurred and therefore, the restricted service list is 
revised as follows:
    Replace ``Jill Howe, Kentucky Heritage Council'' with ``Kary 
Stackelbeck, or Representative, Kentucky Heritage Council.''

    Dated: February 2, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02434 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P