alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 1656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00419]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36163]


Elkhart & Western Railroad Co.--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--Line of CSX Transportation, Inc. Between Monon and 
Monticello, in White County, Ind.

    Elkhart & Western Railroad Co. (EWR), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire 
and operate 9.58 miles of rail line owned by CSX Transportation, Inc. 
(CSXT) between Monon, Ind., (Milepost 0QA-88.42) and Monticello, Ind., 
(Milepost 0QA-98.00) in White County, Ind. (the Line).
    EWR states that it has reached agreement in principle with CSXT, 
the current owner and operator of the Line, providing for EWR to 
acquire, operate, maintain, and perform all common carrier service on 
the Line. EWR states that it will interchange with CSXT at Monon, Ind. 
EWR also states that the proposed acquisition and operation of the Line 
does not involve a provision or agreement that would limit future 
interchange with a third-party connecting carrier.
    EWR certifies that the proposed transaction will not result in EWR 
becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier and that the projected 
annual revenue of EWR will not exceed $5 million.
    The transaction may be consummated on or after January 27, 2018, 
the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice 
was filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than January 19, 
2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
36163, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each 
pleading must be served on Daniel A. LaKemper, Elkhart & Western 
Railroad Co., 1318 S. Johanson Road, Peoria, IL 61607.
    According to EWR, this action is categorically excluded from 
environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting 
requirements under 49 CFR 105.8(b).
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
WWW.STB.GOV.

    Decided: January 8, 2018.

    By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Rena Laws-Byrum,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2018-00419 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 16034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6572]


Determination To Transfer Title of Selected Aircraft to the 
Government of Colombia

    Pursuant to section 484(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act, as 
amended (``the Act'') and section 1-100(a)(1) of Executive Order No. 
12163, I hereby determine that section 484(a)(1) of the Act (which 
requires that the United States retain title to aircraft made available 
to foreign countries primarily for narcotics-related purposes) should 
not apply to: Six (6) Bell UH-1N helicopters; and one (1) T-65 Ayres 
spray airplane, because retention of title to these aircraft would be 
contrary to the national interest of the United States.
    This determination, together with the Memorandum of Justification 
and aircraft inventory, shall be reported to the Congress, and 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 26, 2009.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-7972 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-17-P
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

____________________

No. 00-2432

EILEEN P. KIRK, M.D.,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THE HITCHCOCK CLINIC, MARY HITCHCOCK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE,

DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL, LISABETH MALONEY, BARRY SMITH,

THOMAS COLACCHIO, AND ELLEN HUBBELL,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this court issued on August 20, 2001 is amended as fo

On p. 6, line 17, replace "than" with "that".

On p. 7, line 13, replace "or" with "of".
1

September 29, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants

FROM: Tom Walton

Economist

AEG (C439-02)

TO: David Putney

 Environmental Engineer

MICG (D243-02)

This document addresses the economic impacts of National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants. 

Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the rule and the distribution 

of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market 

will change in response to rule. Total annualized costs for this rule are less $260,000 for 

13 plants. 

Because sales information was not available at the plant level, U.S. Geological Survey 

Mineral Commodities Summaries for Aluminum for 2010

(http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf) 

were used to obtain price and capacity utilization data to combine with cost and capacity 

information to estimate cost to revenues for each plant. Because four of the plants were 

idled in 2010, two capacity utilization estimates were used. One estimate includes the 

idled plants and the other only includes plants producing aluminum in 2010. All costs 

and sales are in 2010 dollars. The largest cost to revenue estimate was less than 0.02 %. 

Whether these costs are absorbed by the plants or passed on by higher prices, market 

impacts are expected to be quite small. See the table on page 2.

The Small Business Administration defines a small entity for Primary Aluminum 

Production (NAICS 331312) as one with fewer than 1000 employees. There are no small 

entities in this rule, so there is no significant impact on small business.
2

FACILITY Control Cost 56% Capacity Utilization –

Cost to Revenue

76% Capacity Utilization 

– Cost to Revenue

Alcoa - Warrick Operations $28,479 0.007% 0.005%

Noranda Aluminum $28,479 0.008% 0.006%

Alumax of South Carolina 

(aka Alcoa - Mt. Holly) $7,500 0.003% 0.002%

Century Aluminum of KY $28,479 0.009% 0.007%

Alcoa - Massena Operations 

(aka Alcoa - Massena West) $28,479 0.018% 0.013%

Reynolds Metals Company 

(aka Alcoa - Massena East) $0 0.000% 0.000%

Alcoa - Wenatchee $7,500 0.003% 0.002%

Intalco Aluminum $7,500 0.002% 0.002%

Rio Tinto Alcan $28,479 0.012% 0.008%

Alcoa - Rockdale Operations $7,500 0.002% 0.002%

Alcoa - Tennessee $28,479 0.011% 0.008%

Ormet Primary Aluminum $7,500 0.002% 0.002%

Century Aluminum of WV $28,479 0.013% 0.010%

Columbia Falls Aluminum $20,979 0.010% 0.007%
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

May 16, 2008

Mr. Gregory S. Coleman

Yetter Warden & Coleman, LLP.

221 West 6th Street, Suite 750

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. David P. Blanke

Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100

The Terrace 7

Austin, TX 78746-7568

RE:Case Number:  06-0873

Court of Appeals Number:  04-05-00943-CV

Trial Court Number:  04-1682-CV

Style:CANYON REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

v.

GUADALUPE-BLANCO RIVER AUTHORITY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0873Page 1**
NO. 07-06-0210-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JULY 27, 2006

______________________________

LESLIE C. CHEW, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2006-411688; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea of guilty, appellant Leslie C. Chew was convicted of theft, in an

amount less than $1,500, enhanced by two prior convictions, and punishment was

assessed at 18 months incarceration in a state jail facility. Proceeding pro se, appellant

filed notice of appeal challenging the conviction.

We have received a certification of right of appeal by which the trial court certified

that the underlying case was a plea-bargain case with no right of appeal. By letter, dated

June 1, 2006, this Court notified appellant that the certification indicated that he had no
1Appellant did file a letter with this Court requesting that the appeal be continued.

However, this letter fails to identify any appellate issues relating to matters that were raised

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial nor did it identify any efforts by the

appellant to obtain the trial court’s permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

A pro se defendant is held to the same standard as any attorney who represents a

defendant. See Johnson v. State, 760 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).

2

right of appeal. In this letter, we further notified appellant that the appeal was subject to

dismissal unless he provided this Court with an amended certification providing that he has

the right of appeal or otherwise demonstrates that there exists other grounds for continuing

the appeal by June 16, 2006. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); Stowe v. State, 124

S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2003, no pet.). No amended certification reflecting

a right to appeal has been filed and appellant has failed to demonstrate other grounds for

continuing the appeal.1

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
James W. HELMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1168

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Anthony Phillip LEDEA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-411

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### John BRENEMAN and William D. Breneman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-5156.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 10, 2004.

William D. Breneman, Principal Attorney, Breneman & Georges, Alexandria, VA, pro se.

Stephanie Tai, Principal Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kristine S. Tardiff, of Counsel, Department of Justice, Concord, NH, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Veramark Technologies, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, David G. Mazzella, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 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/ David G. MazzellaDavid G. MazzellaPresident, Chief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2005
 25
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT** **TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002, the undersigned officer of Global Clean Energy Holdings, Inc. (the
        “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  (i)  The
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
        31,
        2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended; and
  (ii)  The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
                      May 13, 2008
                  By:
                  /s/
                      RICHARD PALMERRichard
                      PalmerChief
                      Executive Officer
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0490]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-3794.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76360), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0030. The approval expires on February 29, 2012. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: April 1, 2009.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E9-7878 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
Sylvester SHULER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3795

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday April 17, 2009.

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters To Be Considered:

Surveillance matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Staff Assistant.

[FR Doc. E9-7531 Filed 3-31-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
New Chemical Substance: TS- 11KK4D

Redacted
STATE of Louisiana v. Alonzo GONZALES and Brent Braneon, Jr.

NO. 2018-KK-0420

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 16, 2018

Denied.
# Europeiska unionens C 34I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 034I |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 64 årgången1 februari 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 034I

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

64 årgången1 februari 2021

---

| Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Yttranden |
| | ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN |
| | Europeiska investeringsbanken |
| 2021/C 34 I/01 | SIT 2021 – Inbjudan att lämna projektförslag – Idéer som förändrar världen – EIB-institutets turnering för social innovation 2021 | 1 |

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

V   Yttranden

ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN

Europeiska investeringsbanken

2021/C 34 I/01

SIT 2021 – Inbjudan att lämna projektförslag – Idéer som förändrar världen – EIB-institutets turnering för social innovation 2021

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

V Yttranden

ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN

Europeiska investeringsbanken

| 1.2.2021 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CI 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CI 34/1

---

SIT 2021 – Inbjudan att lämna projektförslag

Idéer som förändrar världen – EIB-institutets turnering för social innovation 2021

(2021/C 34 I/01)

EIB-institutet arrangerar den tionde turneringen för social innovation

Turneringen för social innovation (SIT) främjar innovativa idéer och belönar initiativ som ger en samhälls- och miljöpåverkan och omfattar projekt inom en rad områden – från utbildning, hälsovård och jobbskapande till ny teknik, nya system och nya processer. Alla projekt tävlar om två priser i en allmän kategori och årets projekt som handlar om hållbar livsstil tävlar också om två priser i en särskild kategori. För att fira turneringens tioårsjubileum kommer de vinnande projekten i båda kategorierna tilldelas ett första- eller andrapris på 75 000 euro respektive 30 000 euro samt ett pris från allmänheten på 10 000 euro.

Följ oss på Facebook: www.facebook.com/EibInstitute

För ytterligare information om turneringen och hur ett innovativt förslag kan lämnas in, se http://institute.eib.org/programmes/social/social-innovation-tournament/

---
EXHIBIT 99.2 -- Report of Independent Accountants

[PricewaterhouseCoopers logo]

					PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
					Suite 1400
					225 South Sixth Street
					Minneapolis MN 55402
					Telephone (612) 596 6000
					Facsimile (612) 373 7160

			Report of Independent Auditors

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
Irwin Home Equity

We have examined managements assertion about Irwin Home Equitys
(the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2004 included in the accompanying management assertion
(see Exhibit I). Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with
those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on managements assertion about the Companys compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance
with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 7, 2005
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. David M. MASTRINO, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2694

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 09, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo F. BURGER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-56502.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

John L. Bailey, Esq., Hall *&*Bailey, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leo F. Burger, Colton, CA, pro se.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, appellee's request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Leo Burger appeals pro se the district court’s order striking his notice of removal *777of a state court action from San Diego Superior Court. We dismiss.

After unsuccessfully attempting to remove the instant action numerous times, Burger filed a notice of removal under the case number of another pending matter before the United States District Court. The district court’s order striking Burger’s notice of removal is unreviewable, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); *United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc.,*360 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (citing *Kunzi v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.,*833 F.2d 1291, 1294 n. 7 (9th Cir.1987)).

Burger’s remaining contentions lack merit.

We deny all outstanding motions as moot.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.