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

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8712-8713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03597]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0789; FRL-9942-66]

Chlorinated Paraffins; Request for Available Information on PMN 
Risk Assessments; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of December 23, 
2015, requesting new available data on certain chlorinated paraffins in 
different industries and for different uses, to inform the risk 
assessments for chlorinated paraffins submitted as Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) Premanufacture Notices (PMNs). This document extends 
the comment period for 30 days, from February 22, 2016 to March 23, 
2016.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2015-0789, must be received on or before March 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in 
the Federal Register document of December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79886) (FRL-
9940-13).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection

[[Page 8713]]

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; 
telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: moss.kenneth@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment 
period established in the Federal Register document of December 23, 
2015 (80 FR 79886) (FRL-9940-13), which requested new available data on 
certain chlorinated paraffins in different industries and for different 
uses, to inform the risk assessments for chlorinated paraffins 
submitted as Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Premanufacture Notices 
(PMNs). Commenters requested additional time to research and submit 
more detailed comments concerning this action. In order to give all 
interested persons the opportunity to comment fully, EPA is hereby 
extending the comment period, which was set to end on February 22, 
2016, to March 23, 2016.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the 
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register 
document of December 23, 2015. If you have questions, consult the 
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: February 17, 2016.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2016-03597 Filed 2-17-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6283

JOSEPH DOUGLAS ROUSE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak, District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00063

- DJN

- EWH )

Submitted : August 23, 2022 Decided: August 26, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS , Circuit Judge , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Joseph Douglas Rouse , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6283 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Joseph Douglas Rouse, a feder al prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order granting Respondent ’ s motion for summary judgment and denying relief on Rouse’ s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court ’s order

. Rouse v. Andrews , No. 3:21

- cv - 00063

- DJN

- EWH (E.D. Va. Jan

. 27 , 20 22 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional p rocess. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6283 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1390. IN THE INTEREST OF W. E. B. et al., children.

We granted the mother’s application for discretionary appeal to review the

juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to three of her children. After

having thoroughly reviewed and considered the record, including the transcript of the

termination hearing, which transcript was not available at the time this Court granted

the mother’s application, we conclude that the evidence viewed in the proper light

supports the juvenile court’s findings and the order terminating the mother’s parental

rights. Therefore, we further conclude that the application for discretionary appeal

was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the order granting the mother’s application

is vacated, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 See generally In the Interest of A. M. B., 324 Ga. App. 394, 396 (750 SE2d

709) (2013) (where record supported the order of the court below, appellate court

concluded that application for discretionary appeal was improvidently granted,

vacated the order granting the mother’s application, and dismissed the appeal).

11/02/2016

November 02, 2016
# C_2014166EN.01000401.xml

| 3.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 June 2014

2014/C 166/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3611 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4640 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81290 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1027 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2214 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1605 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,482 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 302,81 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1393 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3878 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8543 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4714 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4786 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5536 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6073 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7093 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 393,84 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4684 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5043 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5770 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 025,65 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3940 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,669 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 47,4905 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,739 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0580 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5248 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,5176 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3611

JPY

Japanese yen

138,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4640

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81290

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1027

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2214

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1605

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,482

HUF

Hungarian forint

302,81

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1393

RON

Romanian leu

4,3878

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8543

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4714

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4786

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5536

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6073

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7093

KRW

South Korean won

1 393,84

ZAR

South African rand

14,4684

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5043

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5770

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 025,65

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3940

PHP

Philippine peso

59,669

RUB

Russian rouble

47,4905

THB

Thai baht

44,739

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0580

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5248

INR

Indian rupee

80,5176

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
LARAMIE 

June 26, 20 I 2 

··~ 

' 

CITY OF LARAMIE 

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 

P.O. Box C 

Laramie, Wyoming 82073 

Dr. Michael Martin 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

"US De'partment of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: US DOT Essential Air Service Bids for Laramie, Wyoming 

Dear Mr. Martin, 

(307) 721-5226 

FAX (307) 721-5211 

TDD (307) 721-5295 

I \vTite to you concerning the proposals that the Laramie Regional Airport has received from Great 

Lakes Aviation (GLA) and from SkyWest Airlines to provide essential air service to our city. 

As home to the State of Wyoming's only university it is absolutely critical that the community 

have access to high quality, reliable commuter service that connects to markets through Denver 

International Airpot1. It is our goal as a community to no longer require an EAS subsidy and with 

Sky West as our carrier, we believe we can increase boardings to achieve this goal. Laramie 

citizens have become increasingly dis~nfranchised over many yejll's with the current service 

provider. As City Manager, I routinely hear from citizens who choose to drive to Denver rather 

than patronize our local airport because of negative experiences they have had with the current 

provider. 

We believe Sky \Vest Airlines is best positioned to provide the timely and consistent service our 

citizens require. Sky West has a documented history cf reliability, high-quality, and courteous 

customer service. I urge selection of the proposal from SkyWest and am of the opinion that this 

carrier can ultimately rebuild the consumer confidence of Laramie's citizenry and return their 

patronage to our local airport. This positivity, coupled with the reductions in airfares included in 

Sky\Vest's proposal, has the potential to strongly reposition our City economically to larger 

markets. E11icient .:md cost-effective connectedness is essential to recruiting new businesses, and 

keeping the University of Wyoming and our other prominent businesses competitive in a fastpaced regional and global market. 

The City of Laramie strongly supports the selection of Sky West Airlines as the provider of 

essential air service to the Laramie area. Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to 

the results of your evaluation. Please feel free to contact me ifi can be of further assistance as you 

consider this matter. 

~incer7ly ~, 

%' / - / 

~/r\_. ( .. ~ 

J;:mine Jordan 

City Manager 

"Improving Our Quality of Life"
# C_2014277EN.01000101.xml

| 22.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7255 — BSPIH/KFG/FLINT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 277/01

On 14 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7255. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7255. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

The Board of Directors
PLD Telekom Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no. 333-5398) on Form
S-4 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated March 21, 1997, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheet of PLD Telekom Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 
31, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' 
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended 
December 31, 1996, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 2) for the year ended December 31, 1997 of PLD Telekom Inc.



KPMG
Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada
July 22, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15029-15030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06393]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCA942000 L57000000.BX0000 14X L5017AR]


Filing of Plats of Survey: California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of lands described below are scheduled to 
be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, California State 
Office, Sacramento, California.

DATES:  April 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the plats may be obtained from the California 
State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, 
California 95825, upon required payment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Geographic Services, 
Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-
1623, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 978-4310. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1- (800) 877-8339 to contact the 
above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the 
above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business 
hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A person or party who wishes to protest a 
survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, 
Branch of Geographic Services. A statement of reasons for a protest may 
be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, 
Branch of Geographic Services within thirty days after the protest is 
filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of 
official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the 
protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all 
protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including 
your address, phone number, email address, or other personal 
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be 
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your 
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

San Bernardino Meridian

California

    T. 8 S., R. 12 E., supplemental plat of section 5, accepted 
February 12, 2015.
    T. 17 S., R. 2 E., supplemental plat of sections 9 and 10, 
accepted February 18, 2015.

    Authority:  43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.


[[Page 15030]]


    Dated: March 9, 2015.
Lance J. Bishop,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, California.
[FR Doc. 2015-06393 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
# C_2014253EN.01000101.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

2014/C 253/01

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 245, 28.7.2014

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 235, 21.7.2014

OJ C 223, 14.7.2014

OJ C 212, 7.7.2014

OJ C 202, 30.6.2014

OJ C 194, 24.6.2014

OJ C 184, 16.6.2014

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
May 23, 2012

Mr. Gerardo Rios Chief, Permits Office U.S. EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Subject: Pio Pico Energy Ce nter PSD Permit Application Alternative Modeling Analysis (Donovan NO2/NOx ratio)

Dear Mr. Rios:

As requested by EPA in an email message fr om Shirley Rivera to Steve Hill, dated May 11, 2012, we are providing the results of an alternative mode ling evaluation that

uses an in-stack NO 2 /NOx ratio of 0.56 for Donovan De tention Center. The modeling previously submitted was based on the in-stack NO 2 /NOx ratio of 0.1 that was recommended by the San Diego APCD for use in their evaluation of the project.

Applicant understands that this alternative anal ysis is a merely a sensitivity analysis to

demonstrate that the value selected for this stack parameter does not affect the relevant conclusion of the air quality impact analysis: the project will not ca use or contribute to a

violation of the 1-hour NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

All other stack parameters for all other sour ces were unchanged from the values in the modeling previously submitted. As before, meteorological data and regional ambient background values from 2004 through 2008 were used in this analysis.

The applicant has conducted the requeste d modeling and evaluated the potential cumulative impact of the project, nearby source s, and regional background concentrations on hourly NO 2 concentrations. The synthetic ba ckground data used to demonstrate compliance with the federal 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS are the same used in the previously

submitted demonstration.

The highest 5-year average of 98 th percentile maximum daily 1-hour NO 2 concentrations was 179.4 μg/m 3 , which complies with the standard of 188 μg/m 3 . This is the same value as previously determined using an in-stack NO 2 /NOx ratio of 0.1 for Donovan Detention Center. The change in the Donovan NO 2 /NOx does not affect the concentration at the point of maximum impact; nor does it result in impacts elsewhere th at are high enough to supplant the point of maximum impact.

The calculations at the critical re ceptor are summarized in Table 1. 

## sierra research

1801 J Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Tel: (916) 444-6666 Fax: (916) 444-8373

Ann Arbor, MI Tel: (734) 761-6666 Fax: (734) 761-6755Gerardo Rios -2- May 23, 2012

Modeling files are included in the attached el ectronic files.

Table 1

One-hour NO 2 NAAQS Compliance Calculation (Receptor 8164 a )

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 5-year Average

Date March 7 Oct. 19 Dec. 14 March 23 Oct. 14

Hour 21 3 18 23 19

Cumulative Impact (μg/m 3 ) 175.5 170.5 193.9 172.9 184.4 179.4

Regional Background (μg/m 3 ) 125.9 79.0 107.1 101.5 110.9

Project Impact (μg/m 3 ) 37.4 62.1 67.0 20.0 36.6

a . Receptor with the highest 5-year average 98 th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour cumulative impact (monitor data plus modeled impact from project and non-project nearby sources).

Sincerely,

Steve Hill

Attachments

cc: John McKinsey, Stoel Rives LLP David Jenkins, Apex Power Group
Steve Moore, SDAPCD
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 14

- 00077

- CR

Gary VISE

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CR

- 9391

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 11, 2015.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1029 

CAF 15-00843 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF PAULA L. GIBBS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT LEE GIBBS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

PAULA L. GIBBS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M.

Carter, J.), entered April 13, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objection to the

order of the Support Magistrate. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On September 19, 1969, petitioner mother was granted

an order of support against respondent father for their child, born in

1969. A judgment was awarded on May 5, 1986 for accumulated arrears. 

The mother commenced this proceeding in February 2014 seeking

enforcement of the 1986 judgment and child support arrears from the

date of the judgment until the child’s 21st birthday.

We agree with the mother that the Support Magistrate erred in

determining that the six-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 213

(1) applies to the 1986 judgment. Rather, the judgment is governed by

the 20-year period of limitations set forth in CPLR 211 (b) (see

Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 174; Tauber v Lebow, 65 NY2d 596,

598). Even applying that 20-year period, however, we conclude that

the proceeding to enforce the judgment is untimely. With respect to

the arrears that accumulated after the entry of the judgment, even

assuming, arguendo, that the 20-year limitations period for money

judgments ran from each date of default—even though the order of

support was entered prior to August 7, 1987, the effective date of

CPLR 211 (e) (see 42 USC § 666 [a] [9] [A]; see generally Dox, 90 NY2d

at 174)—we note that more than 20 years have passed since 1990, the

year in which the last default in payment occurred.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court did not err in

confirming the Support Magistrate’s finding that the statute of

limitations was not tolled pursuant to CPLR 207 (see Rachlin v Ortiz,

133 AD2d 76, 76). The findings of the Support Magistrate are entitled
-2- 1029 

CAF 15-00843 

to great deference (see Matter of Perez v Johnson, 128 AD3d 1469,

1469), and we conclude that the record supports the disputed finding. 

Although the mother alleged that the father was absent from the state

for periods of time, the father testified and submitted evidence

establishing that he resided in New York during the relevant period. 

We reject the mother’s further contention that the court erred in

confirming the finding of the Support Magistrate that the father’s

conduct after the mother commenced this proceeding did not restart the

statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101; Flynn v

Flynn, 175 AD2d 51, 51-52, lv denied 78 NY2d 863; see generally Fade v

Pugliani/Fade, 8 AD3d 612, 613-614).

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court