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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of intent to reestablish. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the purpose of this notice is to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee, known as the “Technological Advisory Council” (hereinafter the “TAC”) is being reestablished. 

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, Attn: Jon M. Peha, Chief Technologist, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 7-C324, Washington, DC 20554. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jon M. Peha, Chief Technologist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 7-C324, Washington, DC 20554. Telephone: (202) 418-2406, e-mail:                         *jon.peha@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has determined that the reestablishment of the Council is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by law. The Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration concurs with the reestablishment of the Council. The purpose of the TAC is to provide technical advice to the Federal Communications Commission and to make recommendations on the issues and questions presented to it by the FCC. The TAC will address questions referred to it by the FCC Chairman, the FCC Chief Technologist, the Chief of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, or the TAC Designated Federal Officer. The questions referred to the TAC will be directed to technological and technical issues in the field of communications. The duties of the TAC will be to gather data and information, perform analyses, and prepare reports and presentations to respond to the questions referred to it. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

 [FR Doc. E9-6463 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

blr. Lotus Hamriok County huditor Hopkins County Sulphur Springs,Texas Dear Sir:

risonlr iA hia oustodf. 4, 1939, addressedto Honstant AttorneyGeneral,hae
the opinion of this offioe on the fol-

"Is it permissiblefor the Coms Court $0 appropriats$l,~OO.OO 8 General Fund for the aontrol 8 and pooket gophers fn Hopkins County?

" (2) "1s it permissiblefor a sheriff who is on a salary to draw 45b per day for the feeding of prisoners in jail?"Mr. Locus Ha&ok, Page 2

only such statutes, Since the Statutes, It is elementarythat a Commissioners Court has authorityas is given **by** th8 Constitution and either expresslyor by neoessary implication. repeal of krtioles 192 and 192a, Derissd Civil by the Forty-sirat Legislature,there has been-no

_ . general statuteauthorlzlngsuoh oourts to pay a bounty on wolves or coyotes. There are now several speaial statutes authorizingthe Commissioners Courts OS certainmounties to pay bounties Sor the axtermInation OS wolves, ooyo$es, pocket gOph8rs and other predatoryanimals,but none OS them apply to Hopkins County. In the absenoe OS suoh statutory authority,the Commiesioners Court oS said oounty may not legally pay a bounty Sor the extsminating OS sIther wolves, ooyotes or pooket gOph8rS.

We oall your attentionto Artld~~190, Rerlsed Civil Statutes,which speoliioally authorI& the CommIssioneraCourt OS any oounty to purohaee the neoss&ary poisons and aooessories requiredby the oitieens oS tha oounty Sor the purporre OS destroyingw.olves, ooyotes, gophers and many other namsd predatoryanimals. This statutehna not been repealed,and Is aontrolling. It aae so oonstrued by this ossioe In Departmental GplnIon.190.

2306, dated bxaroh 8, 1921, a copy OS whIah Is herewith enolonad. IA amwe? to our seoond questlon~you are advised that ever slnoe Ianuary 1, 1936, the site&Ire date OS Chapter 46.6,

Aeta of the SeaoDi Oalled Session of the Forty-fourth

Legislature,

generallyknowm aspthe WOSfIoers Salary AoV, this oSSIa8 has consistently held that where a sheriff 1s oonpensatedon a salary basis,‘theCommissioners Court **IS** unauthorized to pay him any See whatsoeverSor sbrrices persowed and oannot allow him amy speoIfio sum Sor the boarding of prisonera,but only for aotual expenses~inourred by him in Seeding the prisoners In his custody.

I am herewithenolosingyou a oopy of an opfnfon written by HonorableJames N. 'Uff, a foI?aUr Assistant In this offiae, dated Ootober 13. 1937, and addressed to Honorable Alvin Pape, County Attorney, Se&n, Texas, wherein the **above views**  **are** expressed.Kr. Lotqs Bamrlok, Page 3

Hoping that we have given you the ihiomation requested,

we are Very ttily yours **AlTORNEY** GENERAL OF TEIAS

BWB:FL ENCLOSURES 

# n Aeeietant APPROVED OPlNlON COMMIITEE

APPROVECAUG11,

, ATTORNEY

GBXERALOB TEXAS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrae L. Brown, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 874]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk *635County (Ohlig, J.), rendered April 15, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see, *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). In addition, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, and the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, *People v Rodriguez,*270 AD2d 434; *People v Sosa,*258 AD2d 312; *People v Simons,*158 AD2d 728). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,481]


IM Flash Technologies, LLC., a Joint Venture of Micron Technology 
Inc., and Intel Corportation, Lehi, UT; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on March 4, 2009 in response to 
a worker petition filed by three workers on behalf of workers of IM 
Flash Technologies, Lehi, Utah, a joint venture of Micron Technologies 
Inc., and Intel Corporation.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6314 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### John Zerba et al., Appellants, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 731]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated April 11, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City *680Health and Hospitals Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs were New York City police officers who had escorted a prisoner to the Kings County Hospital Psychiatric Ward for an evaluation. The plaintiffs allegedly asked employees of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter HHC) to restrain the prisoner when he became violent while the police officers were guarding him. The plaintiffs claim that they were injured when they had to physically subdue the prisoner after he attacked them.

The Supreme Court properly granted HHC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, HHC’s employees had no duty to protect them from an assault committed by the prisoner while in the plaintiffs’ custody. No special relationship existed between HHC and the prisoner, or HHC and the plaintiffs, such that HHC had a duty to control the prisoner’s conduct *(see Purdy v Public Adm’r of County of Westchester,*72 NY2d 1, 8 [1988]), or to protect the plaintiffs from him *(see Pulka v Edelman,*40 NY2d 781, 784 [1976]). Nor can liability be predicated on the common-law duty of a landowner to control the conduct of third persons on its premises. We agree with the Supreme Court that the evidence established that the prisoner was at all times within the custody and under the supervision of the plaintiffs *(see e.g. D’Amico v Christie,*71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]; *N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr.,*97 NY2d 247 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
23
 
 
 
 
 
 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 
 Capitol
Bancorp Ltd.
 Lansing,
Michigan
 
 
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-122278, 333-104665, 333-84009, and 333-41215 on Form S-3, Registration
Statements Nos. 333-139235, 333-137910, 333-137367, 333-129778, 333-128850,
333-124417, 333-116571, 333-113931, and 333-115110 on Form S-4 and Registration
Statements Nos. 333-144180, 333-137092, 333-126206, 333-105339, 333-105314,
333-99175, 333-97189, and 333-30521 on Form S-8 of Capitol Bancorp Ltd. of our
reports dated March 10, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements
and the effectiveness of Capitol Bancorp Ltd.'s internal control over financial
reporting, which appear on pages F-32 – F-34 in the Annual Report to
shareholders (Financial Information Section), which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2007.
  
 
 /s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP
 
 
 March 10,
2008
 Grand
Rapids, Michigan
Prepared Discussion of:

Pretreatment Targets for Salt Recovery from

Marcellus Shale Gas Produced Water

IWC‐13‐38

Jerry L. Penland

Chester Engineers

Moon Township, Pennsylvania

   
I have been the discusser on several of Dr. Silva and team’s previously presented papers.  So it

was a bit difficult in reviewing this one to keep a focus on it.  I found myself reflecting on

previous paper goals and statements.  The progression has been interesting because the first

paper started with conceptual approaches in solving the NORM issue in Marcellus produced

fluids. Sulfate precipitation of the radium/barium components was thought to be too

expensive, and so alternate approaches for removal were to be investigated.  Following papers

provided the findings of his investigations on these alternate methods.  Ultimately the Sulfate

precipitation method proved to be the most effective one.

This paper demonstrates how this precipitation technology be most effectively used for

Radium/Barium removal when evaporation/crystallization is the chosen method of recovering

water from produced fluids.  The recovered sodium chloride and lime sludge can be sent to a

class D landfill with a minimal level of treatment or used on roads for deicing with a higher level

of treatment. Barium/Radium/Strontium Sulfate sludge would be sent to Texas for disposal.   

The purge, containing high concentrations of calcium chloride, sodium chloride, strontium and

magnesium chlorides would be disposed or potentially recovered.

The authors state that, “the purpose of this paper is to define produced water barium and

radium pretreatment specifications such that the recovered NaCl product meets Pennsylvania’s

co‐product determination for rock salt.”  The paper explains the method in sufficient detail to

allow the reader to understand the approach.  Both laboratory study and Aspen Plus/OLI

simulations are provided and show excellent correlation.  The use of crystal SEM micrographs,

and other figures are effectively used to demonstrate critical points in the methodology

development process.

This is an excellent paper.  I don’t believe, however, that the study demonstrates that “water

and salt recovery from Marcellus produced water is an economically attractive option,” since

insufficient information in provided in this paper to make that determination. Papers cited in

addressing this are not conclusive as well.

Two questions:  

1. Will the overall process and simulation approach be available for public use?

2. From an application perspective and considering that a treatment plant will see varying

levels of barium/radium in the incoming produced waters from day to day, what would

the authors recommend for controlling the addition of sodium sulfate to maintain the

correct levels of barium/radium removal?
[No. 30554-2-II.

Division Two.

May 4, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Justin Arthur Thompson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 93-1-00598-1, Kitty-Ann van Doorninck, J., entered June 26, 2003. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Armstrong, J., and Seinfeld, J. Pro Tern.
Felix KEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105767

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: October 23, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 28, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 29, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Randall Brachman, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Felix Key was convicted by a City of St. Louis jury of first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon arising out of the shooting of Shelton Buchanan. Key was sentenced to a total of twenty-eight years' imprisonment. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. See *State v. Key* , 364 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Key now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Key raises four points on appeal. The first three points allege his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: 1) properly impeach eyewitness Dominique Darden by introducing his alleged prior inconsistent deposition statement that the police told him to circle Key in the photographic lineup where Darden identified Key as the shooter; 2) investigate and call Key's brother, Terry Clark ("Brother"), as an additional witness to bolster Key's alibi that he was at home the night the crimes were committed; and 3) argue Key's age of nineteen at the time the crimes were committed as a mitigating factor at his sentencing. In his fourth point, Key contends that motion court erred in denying him a hearing on his claim of newly discovered evidence. Finding no clear error, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *750setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16.
# EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of TierOne Corporation
(Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of my knowledge, that:

| | (1) | The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
          March 31, 2005 (Report) fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|Date:  May 5, 2005 | /s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz    
|------------------ | ---------------------------
|                   | Eugene B. Witkowicz        
|                   | Executive Vice President   
|                   | and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 53 (Friday, March 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6332]

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

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting; Board Votes to Close March 12, 2009, 
Meeting

    At its teleconference meeting on February 25, 2009, a majority of 
the members contacted and voting, the Board of Governors of the United 
States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation 
its meeting scheduled for March 12, 2009, in Washington, DC. The Board 
determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

Items To Be Considered

    1. Financial Matters.
    2. Strategic Issues.
    3. Pricing.
    4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
    5. Governors' Executive Session--Discussion of prior agenda items 
and Board Governance.

General Counsel Certification

    The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has 
certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the 
Sunshine Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for information about the 
meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. 
Moore, at 202-268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6332 Filed 3-18-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 208 

Observing the 100th anniversary of the birth of John Leslie ‘‘Wes’’ 

Montgomery and commemorating his contributions to jazz music. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2023 

Mr. CARSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Observing the 100th anniversary of the birth of John Leslie 

‘‘Wes’’ Montgomery and commemorating his contributions to jazz music. 

Whereas, on March 6, 1923, John Leslie ‘‘Wes’’ Montgomery 

(referred to in this resolution as ‘‘Wes Montgomery’’) 

was born to Frances and Tom Montgomery in Indianapolis, Indiana; 

Whereas Wes Montgomery was naturally gifted in the musical arts and became proficient on the 4- and 6-string guitar in his youth; 

Whereas Wes Montgomery was a self-taught musician and 

learned to play guitar by listening to recordings of jazz 

guitarist Charlie Christian; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 208 IH 

Whereas Wes Montgomery developed a unique fingerstyle 

playing technique uncommon to jazz guitarists in his day, 

using the thumb to play bass notes simultaneously with 

melodic lines; 

Whereas Wes Montgomery crafted diverse and unconventional 

rhythms that became a defining representation of bebopstyle jazz guitar; 

Whereas Wes Montgomery became famous after performing 

in jazz clubs in Indianapolis and was later recruited to 

tour with the Lionel Hampton Orchestra; 

Whereas, in 1957, Wes Montgomery joined his brothers 

Buddy and Monk to perform with other bands and record 

music with Pacific Jazz Records; 

Whereas, following the release of Wes Montgomery’s albums 

‘‘The Wes Montgomery Trio’’ and ‘‘The Incredible Guitar 

of Wes Montgomery’’, Wes Montgomery’s music became 

famous internationally, and his band traveled extensively 

in Europe in the spring of 1965; 

Whereas, in 1967, Wes Montgomery’s album ‘‘A Day in the 

Life’’ was rated the premier album on the Billboard Jazz 

Albums chart, 2nd on the Billboard R&B Albums chart, 

and 13th on the Billboard 200 chart; and 

Whereas, on June 15, 1968, Wes Montgomery passed at his 

home in Indianapolis: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the contributions of John Leslie ‘‘Wes’’ 

4 Montgomery to jazz music continue to enrich the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 208 IH 

1 music industry and inspire countless musicians 

2 across the world; and 

3 (2) the legacy of John Leslie ‘‘Wes’’ Mont4 gomery as a great Hoosier musician should be recog5 nized and celebrated. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 11895 on behalf of Turin Aviation Group (Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1031 )

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is a request for an amendment to the existing Section 333 Exemption No. 11895 to add additional aircraft to the exemption

- holder’s authorized commercial operat ions. On

June 25 , 2015, the FAA granted this Petition for Exemption to operate small unmanned aircraft systems for the purpose of power and pipeline patrol, precision agriculture, mining survey, railroad survey, education, research and development

. Turin A viation Group now seeks an amendment to its exemption authorizing the operation of additional aircraft as described in the confidential and proprietary operations manuals submitted in support of this amendment request.

The additional aircraft have been previously approved for operations in other 333 exemptions ; t he Enduro (Exemption No. 12098 to Agribotix LLC,) the Phantom3 and the Inspire1 (Exemption No. 11250A to Videe This! ).

We are prepared to modify or amend any part of this request to satisf y the requirements of the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, or any government referent. We look forward to working with your office. Please contact us at any time if you require additional information or clarification.

Very Respectfully,

Matthew C. Ippolito

Chief Pilot

Zephyrhills Municipal Airport

39450 South Ave Hangar 200 Zephyrhills, FL 33542

Tampa Executive Airport 6530 Tampa Executive Airport Road

Suite 223 Tampa FL 33610