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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38092-38093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment for 
the construction and operation of a replacement aerial tramway on South 
Franklin Mountain, El Paso, Texas.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to fund, 
construct, operate, and maintain a replacement aerial tramway (ATRAM) 
system on South Franklin Mountain, El Paso, Texas. The purpose of the 
proposed project is the replacement of the existing ATRAM with a modern 
ATRAM system. The FAA needs to continue the safe and reliable transport 
of FAA maintenance personnel to service communication facilities 
located at the top of South Franklin Mountain. The FAA's preferred 
alternative is to construct, operate, and maintain a replacement ATRAM 
at a location adjacent to the existing ATRAM system at South Franklin 
Mountain, El Paso, Texas.
    The FAA has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) in 
conformance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA) and FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: 
Policies and Procedures. The DEA analyzes the potential environmental 
impacts that may result from construction and operation of the proposed 
replacement ATRAM system at the proposed site, as well as the no action 
alternative (i.e., not constructing and operating the replacement 
ATRAM).

DATES: The FAA will accept written comments on the DEA until close of 
business on July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The DEA is available for public review during a 30-day 
public comment period at the following libraries:

El Paso Main Library, 501 North Oregon Street, El Paso, TX 79901.
Richard Burges Branch Library, 9600 Dyer St., El Paso, TX 79924.

    Written comments on the DEA may be sent to: Ms. Virginia Marcks, 
FAA, AJW-C15H, 2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018, fax 847-
294-7698, email virginia.marcks@faa.gov. Copies of the Draft EA on 
compact disk may be obtained by contacting Ms. Virginia Marcks. 
Comments received on the DEA during the public comment period will be 
addressed in the Final Environmental Assessment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Virginia Marcks, Manager, 
Infrastructure Engineering Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone number: 
847-294-7494. Email: virginia.marcks@faa.gov.

[[Page 38093]]

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, June 18, 2013.
Virginia Marcks,
Manager, Infrastructure Engineering Center, Chicago, AJW-C15H, Central 
Service Area.
[FR Doc. 2013-15134 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

RE: Luis Perez Hernandez Case Number20-12738 -RAM 

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this deficiency

is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE RECEIVED

BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION

HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note: documents that were not timelyfiled/received bythe trustee may

not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this case. Call the Trustee's case

administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee reserves the right to raise additional

objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and reviewed for possible issues raised and

additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the Trustee. 

The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. The Court may

dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for AUGUST 11, 2020 hearing. All amendments and documents for the AUGUST 11, 2020 

continued confirmation hearings were due as of JULY 24, 2020. (Call the Trustee's case administration

department prior to "re-sending" documents) REVIEWED documents received/filed as of July 27, 2020

3AP served 7/20 (LATE) 

If Counsel for the Debtor(s) appears and agrees on the record and confirms service of the plan:

If actual consent of creditor (US Bank/Select Portfolio - ReShanudra Suggs) on record and motion to value

granted, Confirm 3 A Plan If not Cont to 9/22 (material change) 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by 

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

****The Trustee objects to the appearance of coverage counsel if her recommendation is contested****

Case 20-12738-RAM Doc 44 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

RE: Diego Toribio Case Number 20-10981 -AJC

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this deficiency

is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE RECEIVED

BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION

HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note: documents that were not timelyfiled/received bythe trustee may

not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this case. Call the Trustee's case

administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee reserves the right to raise additional

objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and reviewed for possible issues raised and

additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the Trustee. 

The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. The Court may

dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for April 28, 2020 hearing. All amendments and documents for the April 28, 2020 hearing

were due as of April 10, 2020. (Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to "re-sending"

documents)

PLAN served 1/29

If counsel for the debtor(s) appear at confirmation, confirms service and agrees on the record

Continue to 5/19:

Due on or before 5pm on 5/1 REMAINS UNRESOLVED from 3/24 deficiency 1) obj/conform to cl#2

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by 

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

****The Trustee objects to the appearance of coverage counsel if her recommendation is contested****

Case 20-10981-AJC Doc 23 Filed 04/19/20 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2000 and the condensed
consolidated statement of operation for the three-month period ended March 31,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      58,513,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,028,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,060,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            74,625,000
<PP&E>                                      44,057,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,741,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,792,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,524,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       323,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               112,792,000
<SALES>                                     13,976,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,976,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,497,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,000,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             241,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,476,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,476,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,476,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48




</TABLE>
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Conference Papers 

#           River rating complexity      

      November 16, 2016    

View USGS open-access version of article

Accuracy of streamflow data depends on the veracity of the rating model used to derive a continuous time series of discharge from the surrogate variables that can readily be collected autonomously at a streamgage. Ratings are typically represented as a simple monotonic increasing function (simple rating), meaning the discharge is a function of stage alone, however this is never truly the case unless the flow is completely uniform at all stages and in transitions from one stage to the next. For example, at some streamflow-monitoring sites the discharge on the rising limb of the hydrograph is discernably larger than the discharge at the same stage on the falling limb of the hydrograph. This is the so-called “loop rating curve” (loop rating). In many cases, these loops are quite small and variation between rising- and falling-limb discharge measurements made at the same stage are well within the accuracy of the measurements. However, certain hydraulic conditions can produce a loop that is large enough to preclude use of a monotonic rating. A detailed data campaign for the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri during a multi-peaked flood over a 56-day period in 2015 demonstrates the rating complexity at this location. The shifting-control method used to deal with complexity at this site matched all measurements within 8%.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

####             Robert Holmes, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, F.EWRI, D.WRE (Former Employee)          

##### Chief, Hydrodynamics Branch

Water Resources Mission Area

##### Chief, Water Cycle Branch (acting)

Water Resources Mission Area

## Related Content

####             Robert Holmes, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, F.EWRI, D.WRE (Former Employee)          

##### Chief, Hydrodynamics Branch

Water Resources Mission Area

##### Chief, Water Cycle Branch (acting)

Water Resources Mission Area

### Contact

####             Water Resources Mission Area - Headquarters        

USGS Headquarters12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,737,537
<SECURITIES>                                   836,294
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     97,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,184,014
<PP&E>                                         123,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,339,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,059,934
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,674
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,272,844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,339,428
<SALES>                                      1,001,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,001,587
<CGS>                                          790,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  790,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,330,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,101,667
<INCOME-TAX>                                   406,283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,695,384
<DISCONTINUED>                               (115,421)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,579,963
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.002


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6891
STEPHEN MARK BISHOP, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JAMES FRENCH, Warden of Central Prison; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Correction; NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-96-771-2) Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Mark Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bishop v. French , No. CA-96-771-2 (M.D.N.C. May 22, 1997).We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Predicting carnivore occurrence with noninvasive surveys and occupancy modeling      

      January 1, 2011    

Terrestrial carnivores typically have large home ranges and exist at low population densities, thus presenting challenges to wildlife researchers. We employed multiple, noninvasive survey methods—scat detection dogs, remote cameras, and hair snares—to collect detection–nondetection data for elusive American black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus) throughout the rugged Vermont landscape. We analyzed these data using occupancy modeling that explicitly incorporated detectability as well as habitat and landscape variables. For black bears, percentage of forested land within 5 km of survey sites was an important positive predictor of occupancy, and percentage of human developed land within 5 km was a negative predictor. Although the relationship was less clear for bobcats, occupancy appeared positively related to the percentage of both mixed forest and forested wetland habitat within 1 km of survey sites. The relationship between specific covariates and fisher occupancy was unclear, with no specific habitat or landscape variables directly related to occupancy. For all species, we used model averaging to predict occurrence across the study area. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of our black bear and fisher models suggested that occupancy modeling efforts with data from noninvasive surveys could be useful for carnivore conservation and management, as they provide insights into habitat use at the regional and landscape scale without requiring capture or direct observation of study species.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269

### Explore Search

                  - Biology
                  - Ecosystems
                  - United States
                  - Vermont

View All **
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 199 (Friday, October 11, 1996)]
[Corrections]
[Page 53491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-21011]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program

Correction

    In notice document 96-25709 beginning on page 52778 in the issue of 
Tuesday, October 8, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 52779, in the second column, under Deadlines for Submission 
of Records, in the first paragraph, in the seventh and eighth lines, 
``(45 days after publication in the Federal Register)'' should read 
``November 22, 1996''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 _____________________

No. 95-20003

Summary Calendar

 _____________________

READING & BATES PETROLEUM CO.,

READING & BATES EXPLORATION CO. &

READING & BATES DRILLING CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

BENTON MUSSLEWHITE, THE LAW

OFFICES OF BENTON MUSSLEWHITE, and

PETER MANANGKALANGI,

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas

(CA 86 2671)

_______________________________________________________

July 18, 1995

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants challenge the injunction and contempt orders

entered below. They challenged the contempt orders in a prior

appeal. Reading & Bates Petroleum Co. v. Musslewhite, 22 F.3d

1094 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 318 (1994). We have
examined the briefs and rehearing petitions from the prior appeal

and note that, as here, Appellants argued that the contempt

orders should not have been entered because the injunction was

ambiguous or vague, the district court impermissibly modified the

injunction in the context of a contempt proceeding, and the

district court's rulings were inconsistent with principles of

federalism. In particular, we note that Appellants argued in the

prior appeal that the injunction underlying the contempt orders

was invalid due to the Supreme Court's decision in American

Dredging Co. v. Miller, 114 S. Ct. 981 (1994). While Miller was

decided after the entry of the contempt orders, Appellants had

the opportunity to argue the effect of that case to the prior

panel. Our prior ruling is the law of the case, and cannot be

overruled by another panel of our court. While the procedural

posture of the case is somewhat different in this second appeal,

we see no new issues or arguments which give us pause to question

the prior decision of this court. 

AFFIRMED.
Rico S. YOUNG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1258

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.