alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 15536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8228]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing in the National Register were received by the National Park 
Service before March 22, 1997. Pursuant to Sec. 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 
written comments concerning the significance of these properties under 
the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded to the 
National Register, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, 
D.C. 20013-7127. Written comments should be submitted by April 16, 
1997.
Carol D. Shull,
Keeper of the National Register.

Arizona

Apache County

Lyman Lake Rock Art Site, Address Restricted, Saint Johns vicinity, 
97000347

La Paz County

Harquahala Mountain Smithsonian Solar Observatory Archeological 
District, Address Restricted, Gladden vicinity, 97000346

California

San Francisco County

Grabhorn Press Building, 1335 Sutter St., San Francisco, 97000349
Hunter-Dulin Building, 111 Sutter St., San Francisco, 97000348

Florida

Bradford County

Woman's Club of Starke, 201 N. Walnut St., Starke, 97000350

Madison County

St. Mary's Episcopal Church, (Florida's Carpenter Gothic Churches 
MPS), 108 NW. Horry St., Madison, 97000351

Georgia

Fulton County

Howell Station Historic District, Roughly bounded by W. Marietta, 
Rice, Baylor, and Herndon Sts., Niles Cir., and Longley Ave., 
Atlanta, 97000352
Rucker, Simeon and Jane, Log House, 755 Old Rucker Rd., Alpharetta 
vicinity, 97000353

Louisiana

Ouachita Parish

Robinson Business College, 604 Jack McEnery Ave., Monroe, 97000354

Montana

Missoula County

Studebaker Building, (Missoula MPS), 216 W. Main St., Missoula, 
97000355

New York

Jefferson County

Newton, A., Farm, (Orleans MPS), NY 180, jct. with Co. Rd. 13, 
Hamlet of Omar, Orleans, 97000356

Orange County

Orange Mill Historic District, Powder Mill Rd., near jct. with NY 
52, Newburgh, 97000357

Westchester County

Good Counsel Complex, 52 N. Broadway, White Plains, 97000358

South Carolina

Colleton County

Ravenwood Plantation, SC 64, .9 mi. E of SC 458, Neyles vicinity, 
97000359

Texas

Brewster County

Nolte-Rooney House, 307 E. Sul Ross Ave., Alpine, 97000360

Comal County

Holz-Forshage-Krueger Building, 472 W. San Antonio St., New 
Braunfels, 97000362

Dallas County

Dallas Fire Station No. 16, 5501 Columbia Ave., Dallas, 97000363

Palo Pinto County

Palo Pinto County Courthouse, 520 Oak St., Palo Pinto, 97000365

Travis County

Brown Building, 708 Colorado St., Austin, 97000364
Nagel, Chester and Lorine, House, 3215 Churchill Dr., Austin, 
97000361

Wisconsin

Marinette County

Chautauqua Grounds Site, Address Restricted, Marinette vicinity, 
97000367

Winnebago County

Banta, George, Sr. and Ellen, House, 348 Naymut St., Menasha, 
97000366

[FR Doc. 97-8228 Filed 3-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### Love v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue

112,135

02/18/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 15476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-18-004]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Request For Waiver

March 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 25, 1997, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern) tendered for filing a request for waiver of its tariff 
and the Commission Orders on Transwestern's compliance with the GISB 
standards promulgated under Order Nos. 587 and 587-B to permit 
Transwestern to delay the implementation of GISB standards 1.2.1, 
1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, and 1.4.4 until such date as Transwestern 
can fully test and implement such standards with its trading partners, 
but in no event later than June 1, 1997.
    Transwestern states that copies of the filing have been served upon 
all parties of record at Docket Nos. RP97-18-000, et al.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before March 31, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-8142 Filed 3-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2022

Table 10. Major U.S. Coal Producers, 2022

Rank Controlling Company Name Production (thousand short tons) Percent of Total Production

1 Peabody Energy Corp 101,929 17.2

2 Arch Resources Inc 78,364 13.2

3 Navajo Transitional Energy Co 50,970 8.6

4 Acnr Holdings Inc 36,499 6.1

5 Alliance Resource Partners LP 35,477 6.0

6 David Michael Jamison Petri Koivula 29,421 5.0

7 NACCO Industries Inc 28,899 4.9

8 CONSOL Energy Inc 24,103 4.1

9 Kiewit Peter Sons' Inc 18,234 3.1

10 Foresight Energy Labor LLC 17,763 3.0

11 Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc 15,867 2.7

12 Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC 10,872 1.8

13 Vistra Energy 9,335 1.6

14 Seven Energy Ag 9,117 1.5

15 Global Mining Group LLC 7,431 1.3

16 Coronado Coal LLC 6,650 1.1

17 Prairie State Energy Campus 6,544 1.1

18 Hallador Energy Company 6,542 1.1

19 Wolverine Fuels LLC 6,425 1.1

20 Warrior Met Coal Intermediate Holdco LLC 6,315 1.1

21 J Clifford Forrest 5,415 0.9

22 Iron Senergy Holding LLC 5,381 0.9

Subtotal 517,553 87.1

All Other Coal Producers 76,602 12.9

U.S. Total 594,155 100.0

Notes: The listed companies each produced more than 5 million short tons of coal in 2022. A controlling company of a mine is defined as the company 'controlling the coal, particularly the sale of the coal.' Most

often, but not always, this is the owner of the mine.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Form 7000-2, 'Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report.'
#### *In re*A.C.

108,473

05/22/13

Denied.

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6870]



[[Page 12989]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-286-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Petition for Waiver

March 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 10, 1997, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) filed a petition for a waiver of the April 1, 1997, effective 
date for its annual crediting filings pursuant to Sections 
5.7(c)(ii)(2)B. and 23.7 of the General Terms and Conditions of its 
FERC Gas Tariff.
    NGT seeks permission to file to make such credits, if any, 
effective May 1, 1997. NGT states that it is seeking this waiver 
because of the administrative burden and difficulty experienced in 
closing its books, compiling the required twelve months of data, and 
preparing the filings within the shortened time period required to meet 
an April 1 effective date.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 (18 CFR 385.214, 385.211) of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before March 20, 1997. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for inspection in the public reference room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6870 Filed 3-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# m94_62
# C_2020449EN.01034601.xml

| 23.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 449/346 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 449/346

---

P8_TA(2019)0090

EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part (07979/2018 — C8-0447/2018 — 2018/0095(NLE))

(Consent)

(2020/C 449/45)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (07979/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07979/2018),

| — | having regard to the draft Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part (07980/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part (07980/2018),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0447/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0447/2018),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2017 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2017 (1),

| — | having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 (2) on the draft decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 (2) on the draft decision,

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0054/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0054/2019),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Singapore. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Opinion of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2017, 2/15, ECLI:EU:C: 2017:376.

(2)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0091.

---
# C_2018385EN.01000601.xml

| 25.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 385/6

---

Notice to economic operators — New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

(2018/C 385/05)

Economic operators are informed that the Commission has received requests in accordance with the administrative arrangements foreseen in the Commission Communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2011/C 363/02) (1) for the July round of 2019.

The list of the products for which a duty suspension is requested is now available on the Commission’s thematic (Europa) website on the customs union (2).

Economic operators are also informed that the deadline for objections against new requests to reach the Commission, via the national administrations, is 18 December 2018 which is the date of the second scheduled meeting of the Economic Tariff Questions Group.

Interested operators are advised to consult the list regularly in order to be informed on the status as the requests.

More information on the autonomous tariff suspension procedure can be found on the Europa website:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/suspensions/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 13.12.2011, p. 6.

(2)  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp?Lang=en

---
# C_2018191EN.01000701.xml

| 5.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/7

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2018/C 191/06)

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

1

2

On page 152, after the Explanatory Note to subheading ‘2939 69 00 Other’, the following texts are inserted:

On page 152, after the Explanatory Note to subheading ‘2939 69 00 Other

| ‘2939 71 00 | Cocaine, ecgonine, levometamfetamine, metamfetamine (INN), metamfetamine racemate; salts, esters and other derivatives thereof

  This subheading includes alkaloids reproduced by synthesis.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2939 71 00

Cocaine, ecgonine, levometamfetamine, metamfetamine (INN), metamfetamine racemate; salts, esters and other derivatives thereof

This subheading includes alkaloids reproduced by synthesis.’

| ‘2939 79 | Other

  See the explanatory note to subheading 2939 71 00.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2939 79

Other

See the explanatory note to subheading 2939 71 00.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                                  CT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements, schedules and other disclosure contained in
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1999 of B. F. Saul Real
Estate Investment Trust and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements, schedules and other disclosure.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                             1000

<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                      SEP-30-1999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        9511840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     516
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                                 6642
<OTHER-SE>                                                             (12783)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          9511840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            29302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     56387
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            23470
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            3.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            3.74


</TABLE>
Opinion issued June 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-13-00205-CR ____________

IN RE CUONG ANH VAN NGUYEN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se relator Cuong Anh Van Nguyen has petitioned this court for 

mandamus relief, naming as respondent John Hawkins, an attorney with the Fort 

Bend County District Attorney’s office.*

 In the petition, relator complains that his 

pre-sentencing jail time credit has been inaccurately calculated, and he seeks to 

have this calculation corrected. 

 * The underlying case is State v. Cuong Anh Van Nguyen, Case Number 06-DCR044680A, in the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. The respondent 

is John Hawkins, an assistant district attorney in Fort Bend County.
2

Relator’s request does not fall within our mandamus jurisdiction. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004); In re Praker, No. 01–10–001057–CR, 

2011 WL 1326010, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] April 7, 2011, orig. 

proceeding). We do not have mandamus jurisdiction against a district attorney

unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; 

Praker, 2011 WL 1326010, at *1; see also In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Because the relief 

requested by relator is not necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, we have no 

jurisdiction to compel the district attorney to act. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 22.221.

We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/                James Ahearn                                                                                                                             |
|        |   |   | James                Ahearn                Chief                  Financial Officer                  January                    19,                    2007 |

----
different from those raised in his previous petition. 2 See NRS 

34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally 

barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See 

NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the 

State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the 

rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). 

Appellant claimed that his procedural defects could be 

explained by a mental relapse that occurred in May 2003 and lasted until 

April 2012. Appellant claimed that he was not capable of understanding 

post-conviction procedures during this time period. Appellant failed to 

demonstrate good cause. Appellant litigated a motion for a new trial, a 

motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and a post-conviction petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus during this time period. Appellant failed to demonstrate 

that the claims in the instant petition were not reasonably available to be 

raised in a timely petition. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 

P.3d 503, 506 (2003). To the extent that appellant claimed that he was 

actually innocent and that this should overcome his procedural defects, 

appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show 

that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have 

convicted him in light of. . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 

U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see 

2Harris v. State, Docket No. 53196 (Order of Affirmance, October 21, 

2009). Appellant also litigated a motion for a new trial and a motion to 

withdraw guilty plea. Harris v. State, Docket No. 50285 (Order of 

Affirmance, April 25, 2008). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

019A 

Cherry 

also Pellearini v. State. 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); 

Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We 

therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's 

petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Sammy Marvin Harris 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3We deny the proper person motion to stay this appeal. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
No. 12-5110.

#### Hill *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Energy Efficiency is 

Critical for Governmental 

Facilities Asset 

Modernization 

2018 EIA Energy Conference
2

Energy Performance Contracting 

(EPC, ESPC, etc.)

 Use of future energy savings to improve our aging 

buildings now, without capital dollars. 

 An agreement to improve the energy efficiency of a 

facility. The costs of the services are paid from the 

savings generated by the project.

 Cost neutral – Guaranteed results
Infrastructure Rapidly Aging while 

funding is decreasing

• *Average age of school buildings in the 

US is 42 years!

• We are facing a critical infrastructure 

crisis

* NCIS Study 2010

3
• Council of the Great City Schools, “Reversing the Cycle of Deterioration in the Nation’s Public School 

Buildings,” October 2014, p. 13.

4
5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Utility Cost Distribution

 Utility Cost Savings

 BEFORE AFTER
6

“Everyone is paying 

for an Energy 

Performance 

Contract whether 

they do it or not!”
7

Where to Utilize

Office Buildings

School Facilities

Wastewater Treatment Plants

Correctional Facilities

Health Facilities

Traffic Control Lighting

Educational Facilities
8

Questions

Karen Galindo-White

Senior Business 

Development Manager 

ESG

443-690-1750
#### *In re L.S.M.A.*

114,038

07/07/2016

Denied.

Unpublished