alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 19,2012 Document Management Facility US Dept ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave SE Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 Document 2012-0350 Dear Committee members, I am a FAA certified commercial pilot with approximately 5400 hours and I typically fly 150 hours each year. This letter is in support ofthe FAA proposal to exemptrecreational pilots from being required to obtain 3rd class physical exams from FAA AMEs as nowrequired under FAR 61.23. This proposal would allowthe exemption for private andrecreational pilots who are limitedto flying a 180 HP aircraft orless, 4 seats orless, andto only fly daylight VFR. These limitations restrict the flying to fun only purposes. Night flying, IFR flights, and other business-related flights would still require a Class III exam. Research has shown that LSApilots (exempt from an FAAmedical) are not at risk for medical emergencies while flying. Flying for fun, using the pilot's owndetermination ifhe/she is physically fit has shown it does not present any adverse medical risk for pilots. Also this will reduce the cost offlying for about 100,000pilots byeliminatingthe expensive FAA required physical exam. Therefore, I endorse this recommendation and hope the FAA will approve this proposal.

Carl A. Spar 116 Riverbend Road Branson, MO 65616 417 337-8161 csparks002@centurytel.net
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50577 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAFAEL SALAZAR-NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-96-CR-331

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rafael Salazar-Navarro appeals from his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after his deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. His motion for a stay of his appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. AlmendarezTorres , 113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. granted , 117 S. Ct. 1333 (1997), is DENIED. Salazar-Navarro argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under § 1326(a) and that he could notNo. 97-50577 -2- be sentenced under § 1326(b)(2) because the indictment failed to allege that he had a prior aggravated felony conviction. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
Philip W. DUFFEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2573

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6994

AL-TARIK SUMNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARK, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-00165-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Al-tarik Sumner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Al-tarik Sumner seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without 

prejudice to his right to proceed in the Virginia state courts. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Sumner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HOWARD LEE HAMILTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2190 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed December 12, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Brian A. Iten, Judge. Howard Lee Hamilton, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Mansfield v. State, 911 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2005); Rivera v. State, 717 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1998); Mungin v. State, 689 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1995); Kearse v. State, 662 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1995).

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Scientists probe Earth’s secrets at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory      

      January 1, 1974    

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) sits on the edge of Kilauea Caldera at the summit of Kilauea Volcao, one of the five volcanoes on the island of Hawaii, the largest island in the Hawaiian Islands chain. Of the five, only Kilauea and Mauna Loa have been active in the past 100 years. Before its last eruption in June 1950, Mauna Loa had erupted more frequently and copiously than Kilauea, but since then only Kilauea has been active. 

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - hawaii

View All **
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 195 (Monday, October 7, 1996)]
[Corrections]
[Page 52497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-61007]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 550

RIN 3206-AH09


Pay Under the General Schedule; Termination of Intermin 
Geographic Adjustments

Correction

    In the correction to rule document 96-1835 published on page 50535, 
in the issue of Thursday, September 26, 1996, the CFR part should read 
as set forth above.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Monday, June 22, 2009, in room GL-20 at the Greenhoot Cohen Building, 1722 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Council is to provide external advice and review for VA's research mission. The agenda will include a review of the VA research portfolio and a summary of current budget allocations. The Council will also provide feedback on the direction/focus of VA's research initiatives.

                    Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or wishing further information should contact Jay A. Freedman, PhD, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 461-1699. Oral comments from the public will not be accepted at the meeting. Written statements or comments should be transmitted electronically to                     *jay.freedman@va.gov*                     or mailed to Dr. Freedman at Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development (12), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.                

Dated: April 24, 2009.

By Direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-9928 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

36608

Vol. 61, No. 134

Thursday, July 11, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Assessment (EA) for

Disposal of Property at the Defense

Personnel Support Center (DPSC),

Philadelphia, PA

Correction

In notice document 96–16809

appearing on page 34424 in the issue of

Tuesday, July 2, 1996, make the

following correction:

On page 34424, in the second column,

in the second paragraph, in the fourth

line ‘‘not’’ should read ‘‘now’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched

Uranium Final Environmental Impact

Statement

Correction

In notice document 96–16565

beginning on page 33719 in the issue of

Friday, June 28, 1996, make the

following correction:

On page 33719, in the third column,

under DATES:, in the sixth line, ‘‘July 29,

1996’’ should read ‘‘July 15, 1996’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10 and 15

2115-AF23

Licensing and Manning for Officers of

Towing Vessels

Correction

In proposed rule document 96–15346

beginning on page 31332 in the issue of

Wednesday, June 19, 1996 make the

following corrections:

1. On page 31335, in the second

column, in the last pagragraph, seven

lines down ‘‘lower-trade’’ should read

‘‘lower-grade’’.

2. On page 31337, in the second

column, the heading ‘‘45 CFR Part 10’’

should read ‘‘46 CFR Part 10’’.

3. On page 31340, in the table

‘‘ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS OF

THIS RULEMAKING ARE AS

FOLLOWS:’’, the third dollar entry

‘‘505,00’’ should read ‘‘505,000’’.

§ 10.43 [Corrected]

4. On page 31345, in the second

column, in § 10.43(b), in the seventh

line ‘‘10.414’’ should read ‘‘10.424’’; and

in the eighth line ‘‘10,418’’ should read

‘‘10.418’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 111

[CGD 94-108]

RIN 2115-AF24

Electrical Engineering Requirements

for Merchant Vessels

Correction

In rule document 96–16318 appearing

on page 33045, in the issue of

Wednesday, June 26, 1996, make the

following correction:

§111.87-3 [Corrected]

On page 33045, in the third column,

in §111.87-3, in amendatory instruction

20., in the last line, ‘‘§100.20-1’’ should

read ‘‘§110.20-1’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-574876

NO. 2018-BA-1197

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 17, 2018

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

*1286After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall continue to comply with the terms of the recovery agreement he signed with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ("JLAP") on June 28, 2018.

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner's JLAP agreement. However, petitioner's conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall authorize the Executive Director of JLAP to report any violations of the JLAP agreement to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC").

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner's JLAP agreement, the Executive Director of JLAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner's progress and participation in JLAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner's continued participation in JLAP.

5. Following receipt of the report from JLAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

6. Petitioner shall cooperate with JLAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by JLAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

**CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.**
Earl MURRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-3

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Order filed February 10, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00771-CV

____________

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellant

V.

GERALD GAMBICHLER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-68385

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due January 28, 2015. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before March 12, 2015, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Simulated Ground-Water-Flow Responses to Geohydrologic Characteristics, Corinna, Maine      

      October 1, 2001    

View Document

View Document

Ground-water-flow simulations of an idealization of surficial and bedrock aquifers of the East Branch Sebasticook River Valley, in Corinna, Maine, were done to test the effects of known or hypothesized geohydrologic characteristics on the local and regional ground-water-flow system. The purpose of the simulations was to develop a better understanding of the aquifer system to aid in planning for the eventual removal of contaminants.

The effects of eight individual geohydrologic characteristics on simulated ground-water flow were compared with a base simulation. The eight geohydrologic characteristics simulated were (1) a northeast-southwest transmissive bedding- plane fracture system, (2) a northwest-southeast valley floor transmissive fracture zone, (3) an upper weathered bedrock transmissive zone, (4) river- and pond-stage changes, (5) river- and pondbottom conductivity changes, (6) multiple withdrawals, (7) a combination of some of these characteristics, and (8) relocation of a pond-outlet stream.

The effects of many of the analyzed characteristics are slight or relatively minor with respect to a simulated bedrock aquifer. The simulated ground-water flow through the bedrock aquifer is a small percentage (about 1 percent) of the total flow to the system; therefore, the effects of most geohydrologic characteristics simulated are minimal in the aquifer. Some characteristics, for example, anisotropy imparted on the bedrock system by a northeast-southwest transmissive bedding-plane fracture system, strongly affect flow patterns in the bedrock aquifer but not in the surficial aquifer. Individually, most of the geohydrologic characteristics evaluated only slightly affect the groundwater flow in the bedrock; however, in combination, these characteristics significantly affected the entire simulated ground-water-flow system. Domestic or remedial withdrawal wells generally had little effect on the regional ground-water-flow system but did affect the local ground-water-flow patterns, which could affect the extent and movement of contaminants.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Thomas J Mack, PG

##### Hydrogeologist 

International Programs

tjmack@usgs.gov

603-226-7805

#### Robert Dudley

##### Supervisory Hydrologist

New England Water Science Center

rwdudley@usgs.gov

207-626-6615

## Related Content

#### Thomas J Mack, PG

##### Hydrogeologist 

International Programs

tjmack@usgs.gov

603-226-7805

#### Robert Dudley

##### Supervisory Hydrologist

New England Water Science Center

rwdudley@usgs.gov

207-626-6615

### Study Area

### Contact

####               New England Water Science Center          

10 Bearfoot RdNorthborough, MA01532United States

### Explore Search

                  - Groundwater Modeling
                  - Groundwater
                  - Hydrologic Modeling
                  - Water
                  -  New England

View All **
# L_2005029EN.01004801.xml

| 2.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 29/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 29/48

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2005/81/CFSP

of 31 January 2005

extending the mandate of the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia-Herzegovina

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP of 11 March 2002 on the European Union Police Mission (1) (EUPM), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2004/188/CFSP of 23 February 2004 concerning the appointment of the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | On 23 February 2004, the Council adopted Decision 2004/188/CFSP appointing Mr Bartholomew Kevin Carty as Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM as of 1 March 2004 for the duration of one year. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 February 2004, the Council adopted Decision 2004/188/CFSP appointing Mr Bartholomew Kevin Carty as Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM as of 1 March 2004 for the duration of one year.

| (2) | Decision 2004/188/CFSP expires on 1 March 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision 2004/188/CFSP expires on 1 March 2005.

| (3) | The Secretary General/High Representative has proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Bartholomew Kevin Carty as Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM until 31 December 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Secretary General/High Representative has proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Bartholomew Kevin Carty as Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM until 31 December 2005.

| (4) | The mandate of the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM should therefore be extended, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The mandate of the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM should therefore be extended,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The mandate of Mr Bartholomew Kevin Carty as Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM is hereby extended until 31 December 2005.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 31 January 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 70, 13.3.2002, p. 1. Joint Action as last amended by Joint Action 2003/188/CFSP (OJ L 73, 19.3.2003, p. 9).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 58, 26.2.2004, p. 27.

2

---
#### Little Falls Hospital, Plaintiff, *v.*Board of Assessors of the City of Little Falls et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Herkimer County,

October 12, 1973.

*Blumberg ■& Blumberg (Arnold L. Blumberg*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Joseph A. Santry, City Attorney,*for defendants.

Richard 1ST. Dofovaf, J.

The Little Falls Hospital claims the City of Little Falls, through its Board of Assessors, has improperly taxed exempt property.

For many years a building located at 4 Whited Street was occupied as a residence for nurses employed in the hospital. In recent times portions of the building have been rented to practicing physicians and to the Herkimer County Mental Health Clinic. Other portions of the building are used for storage of hospital materials and for living quarters for one of the hospital’s nurses. The physicians who have office space in the building examine and treat people other than hospital patients and make charges to those people for their services.

The hospital contends the rental is in a nominal amount and the space is rented to physicians for the dual purposes of inducing them to practice their profession in the area and to have physicians immediately and closely available for care and treatment of hospital patients. Each of the doctors is on the hospital staff and pays only $80 as monthly rental.

The city claims that the leasing of this property is not incidental to the administration or treatment given at the hospital *732but- rather the property in question is being used for business purposes and, therefore, is subject to taxation.

It has become the common practice to offer all sorts of monetary inducements to attract physicians, nurses and other medical and hospital personnel. Some communities construct and furnish private offices. Others provide expensive equipment for free use by medical people and, in this instance, the hospital appears to be offering the inducement of office space at nominal rental. Although this special treatment may be necessary to obtain medical specialists in the Little Falls area, the only question before this court is whether or not such leasing results in loss of tax exemption.

In the opinion of this court that portion of the building used as rental property is subject to assessment and tax liability. If the only people treated and examined by these physicians were hospital patients, the renting of the office might very well be incidental to hospital purposes even though the patients were charged by the doctor for the care and treatment. However, the doctors using these offices are conducting their private practice of medicine which is not incidental to the purposes and the operation of the hospital. (See *Matter of St. Luke’s Hosp.*v. *Boyland,*12 N Y 2d 135.)

If the parties cannot agree on the apportionment of the property exempt and subject to tax, application may be made to this court for determination.