alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 8085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-40221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Secretary's Order 6-96]


Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the 
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health

Correction

    In notice document 96-33366 beginning on page 111 in the issue of 
Thursday, January 2, 1997 make the following corrections:
    1. On the same page, third column, the subject heading above has 
been corrected.
    2. On the same page, third column, line six from the bottom, 
``whiteblower'' should read ``whistleblower''.
    3. On page 112, first column, first paragraph, line seven, 
``whitleblower'' should read ``whistleblower''.
    4. On the same page, first column, first paragraph, line nineteen, 
``act'' should read ``Act''.
    5. On the same page, second column, second line in paragraph (l), 
``300J'' should read ``300j''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Three-dimensional partitioning of resources by congeneric forest predators with recent sympatry      

      April 15, 2019    

Coexistence of ecologically similar species can be maintained by partitioning along one or more niche axes. Three-dimensional structural complexity is central to facilitating resource partitioning between many forest species, but is underrepresented in field-based studies. We examined resource selection by sympatric northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina), a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act, and nonnative barred owls (S. varia) in western Oregon, USA to explore the relative importance of canopy heterogeneity, vertical complexity of forest, and abiotic features to resource selection and identify potential differences that may facilitate long-term coexistence. We predicted that within home range selection of understory densities, measured with airborne lidar, would differ between species based on proportional differences in arboreal and terrestrial prey taken by each owl species. We used discrete choice models and telemetry data from 41 spotted owls and 38 barred owls monitored during 2007–2009 and 2012–2015. Our results suggested that while both species used tall canopy areas more often than low canopy areas, spotted owls were more commonly found in areas with lower tree cover, more developed understory, and steeper slopes. This is the first evidence offine-scale partitioning based on structural forest properties by northern spotted owls and barred owls.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### J David Wiens

##### Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

jwiens@usgs.gov

541-750-0961

## Related Content

#### J David Wiens

##### Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

jwiens@usgs.gov

541-750-0961

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC) Headquarters          

777 NW 9th StSuite 400Corvallis, OR97330United States

fresc_outreach@usgs.gov

541-750-1030

541-750-1069

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Oregon

View All **
Romeo WARD, Petitioner, v. Lori VANCAMP, Examiner, and Florida Commission on Offender Review, Respondents.

No. 1D17-1122

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5035 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5035

  To reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2016

 Mr. Gosar (for himself, Mrs. Black, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Cook, 
Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Lamborn, Ms. 
McSally, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Olson, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Schweikert, 
Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Knight, Mr. Salmon, 
Mr. Barletta, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Jones, and Mrs. Comstock) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) SCAAP Reauthorization.--Section 241(i)(5)(C) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)(C)) is amended by striking 
``2011.'' and inserting ``2020.''.
    (b) SCAAP Assistance for States.--
            (1) Assistance for states incarcerating undocumented aliens 
        charged with certain crimes.--Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is 
        amended by inserting ``charged with or'' before ``convicted''.
            (2) Assistance for states incarcerating unverified 
        aliens.--Section 241(i) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)), as 
        amended by paragraph (1) and subsection (a), is further 
        amended--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), 
                as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
                    (B) in paragraph (7), as redesignated, by striking 
                ``(5)'' and inserting ``(6)''; and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) In the case of an alien whose immigration status is 
        unable to be verified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
        and who would otherwise be an undocumented criminal alien if 
        the alien is unlawfully present in the United States, the 
        Attorney General shall compensate the State or political 
        subdivision of the State for the incarceration of the alien in 
        accordance with paragraph (2).''.
                                 <all>
```
Ja,I Eo s rq r~,S 

z UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

o ~~~/J Q WASHINGTON ;D.C. 20460 

2 ~1j~Li ? 

~F ~o 

PROS NOV 13 2014 

OFFICE OF WATER 

Ms. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn 

Executive Director 

The Environmental Council of States 

SO F Street NW Suite 350 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Ms. Dunn: 

I am pleased to update you regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to provide 

clarification on assumable waters under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(g). In Nancy Stoner's 

June 13, 2014, response to your letter requesting such clarification, Ms. Stoner indicated she had asked 

her staff to identify a path forward that would engage your organization, as well as other appropriate 

state, federal and tribal partners and technical experts in a process that seeks to provide this improved 

clarity. 

As my staff recently discussed with you, the EPA plans to establish a subcommittee under the National 

Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). This council, subject to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, provides independent advice to the EPA administrator on a broad 

range of environmental policy, technology and management issues. The charge to this subcommittee 

would be to make recommendations to the EPA on clarifying the waters for which a state or tribe may 

assume permitting responsibility under CWA Section 404(g) and the waters for which the Corps of 

Engineers retains permitting responsibility. These recommendations will then be considered for 

incorporation into an update of the CWA Section 404(g) regulations. We will be seeking nominations 

for members of the NACEPT subcommittee, and I encourage you to nominate a member of your 

organization as well as identify other technical experts that you believe should be involved in this effort. 

The EPA is committed to providing clarity and removing barriers to state assumption of CWA Section 

404(g) permitting authority. I believe a NACEPT subcommittee will foster a robust discussion amongst 

technical experts and interested parties on various approaches to clarifying assumable waters under 

CWA Section 404(g). I look forward to ECOS' participation in this effort. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

RecycledlRecyclabte • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions on this issue, or your staff may contact Mr. John 

Goodin, Acting Director of the EPA's Wetlands Division at Goodin.John@epa.gov or (202) 566-1373 

for further information. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

Kenneth J. Kopocis 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 

cc: Ms. Julia Anastasio 

Executive Director and General Counsel 

Association of Clean Water Administrators 

Ms. Jeanne Christie 

Executive Director 

Association of State Wetland Managers
Joshua Brian NIBBELINK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 2018 Rehearing Denied August 15, 2018

Joshua Brian Nibbelink, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*1312The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000228 02-MAR-2020 08:36 AM
Order entered August 20, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01201
- CR DAVID DEWAYNE OWENS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F12
- 51368
- H



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appel lant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This ap peal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search:  Meteor Crater

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(17)
              - multimedia_image(5)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149203(2)
              - (-)news_news-149246(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - (-)other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)

## By Year

Science Snippet        June 3, 2016        EarthView–Eye of the Sahara

Human Capital        September 19, 2018        Dave Roddy
Robert L. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0221

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 21-10749-RAM Doc 6 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 1
Michael BARBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4469

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 53878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-41016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Airspace Docket No. 94-ASO-18]
RIN 2120-AA66


Establishment of Restricted Areas; Camp Lejeune, NC

Correction

    In final rule document 97-26671 beginning on page 52226 in the 
issue of Tuesday, October 7, 1997 make the following corrections:


Sec. 75.53  [Corrected]

    (1) On page 52228, in the third column, under the heading R-5304A 
Camp Lejeune, NC [New], in the sixth line ``77 deg.35'15''W.;'' should 
read ``77 deg.33'15''W.;''.
    (2) On page 52229, in the first column, in the first line 
``77 deg.35'15''W.;'' should read ``77 deg.33'15''W.;''.
    (3) On the same page, in the same column, under the heading R-5304C 
Camp Lejeune, NC [New], in the sixth line ``77 deg.35'15''W.;'' should 
read ``77 deg.33'15''W.;''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Proceedings of workshop XXVIII on the Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake      

      January 1, 1985    

View Document

A large earthquake leaves clues of its nature that can be interpreted only by a diverse group of scientists. We cannot hope to form a coherent picture of the Borah Peak shock, a rare Great Basin event, without listening to each other and reflecting on the historical and geological record of its antecedents. At a workshop held less than a year after the Borah Peak mainshock we shared our observations, exchanged ideas, and revisited the spectacular landforms at the earthquake site. In the forty reports of this volume we present our findings, a wealth of preliminary, but interdisciplinary research.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - borah peak
                  - Idaho

View All **
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

PETER H. BEER, TERRY J. HATTER, JR., 

THOMAS F. HOGAN, RICHARD A. PAEZ, 

JAMES ROBERTSON, LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN, 

A. WALLACE TASHIMA AND U. W. CLEMON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-5012 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in case no. 09-CV-037, Senior Judge Robert H. 

Hodges, Jr. 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Upon consideration of the order of the Supreme Court 

of the United States in Peter H. Beer, et al., v. United 

States, 131 S.Ct. 2865 (2011), vacating this court’s judgment and remanding to this court for further consideration, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
BEER v. US 2

The mandate of this court issued on March 30, 2010 is 

recalled, the appeal is reinstated, and this court’s January 

15, 2010 judgment is vacated. 

FOR THE COURT

August 4 , 2011 

—————————— 

Date 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

—————————— 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

cc: Christopher Landau, Esq. 

Brian M. Simkin, Esq.
Arthur KENT v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

NO. 2018-CI-0674

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Arizona

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(91)
              - products_data(378)
              - products_maps(425)
              - products_publications(3675)
              - products_web_tools(6)
              - multimedia_audio(20)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(19)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(406)
              - multimedia_image-141769(9)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(354)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(17)
              - multimedia_image-204460(10)
              - (-)multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(4)
              - multimedia_video(123)
              - multimedia_video-149194(48)
              - multimedia_video-149195(51)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(10)
              - multimedia_video-149198(2)
              - documents_file(12)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149245(10)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(12)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_other_news(23)
              - connect_locations(4)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(85)
              - other_basic-37(2)
              - other_basic-42(20)
              - other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)

## By Year

Screenshots        May 8, 2024        Certificate Received by Laura Norman for the Outstanding Alumnus Award from the University of Arizona
Exhibit








Exhibit 10-a-2


April 17, 2017


Werner Lieberherr
EVP & COO, Interior Systems




Dear Werner:


Welcome to Rockwell Collins!


As you know, B/E granted you 67,282 of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) on November 15, 2016. Pursuant to Section 7 of your RSU Award agreement, the RSUs have been converted into a cash award of $6,645,306.39.  Attached is a spreadsheet showing how this amount was calculated. This amount includes accumulated dividend equivalents on the RSUs as of the closing date.


In accordance with your RSU Award Agreement, the cash award will be credited with interest of 4% compounded quarterly.  4% is the prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal on April 13, 2017.  Your cash award will be subject to the applicable terms of the RSU Award Agreement. 


Please call me if you have any questions.




Sincerely,






	
	
	/s/ Laura A. Patterson

	Laura A. Patterson                                                        Vice President, Rewards & Labor Strategy
Rockwell Collins
Exhibit
32.1











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
USC. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and
on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to his knowledge:
 
 1.The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
  2.  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.














Date:
      March 31, 2010
                /s/
      Derrick SpatoricoDerrick
      SpatoricoActing
      President, Chief Executive Officer, and
  Treasurer
60654 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 198 / Friday, October 13, 2006 / Presidential Documents 


gechino on PRODPC25 with PROPOSALS6ED13OC06.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 198 / Friday, October 13, 2006 / Presidential Documents 60655 

[FR Doc. 06–8715 

Filed 10–12–06; 8:46 am] 

Billing code 3190–01–C 


gechino on PRODPC25 with PROPOSALS6ED13OC06.004</GPH>
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 VIA HAND DELIVERY 

May 8, 2017 
 Richard Kaufman 

Intersect ENT, Inc. 
 1555 Adams Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 
 Re: Amended Separation Benefits

 Dear Richard: 
 This letter agreement sets out an
amendment (the “Amendment’) to the terms of your employment offer letter with Intersect ENT, Inc. (the “Company’’) dated December 6, 2006, as amended
November 18,2013 and January 26, 2015 (collectively, the “Offer Letter”). The terms set forth in this Amendment replace and supersede the terms with respect to such matters set forth in the Offer Letter. This
Amendment is effective as of the date of your signature below. 
 Amendment of Section 2: Severance Upon Termination or in Connection with Change in
Control: 
 The second full paragraph under section number 2 of your Offer Letter, entitled, Severance Upon Termination in Connection with a Change in
Control, is hereby deleted and replaced with the following paragraph: 
 If, in connection with or within twelve (12) months after a
Change of Control Transaction, a Separation from Service occurs, you shall be entitled to (i) payment of twelve (12) months of your base salary, less all applicable withholdings and deductions, paid over such 12-month period immediately
following the Separation from Service, on the schedule described below, (ii) a lump sum payment equal to your annual target bonus prorated for the number of days of the then current bonus period worked prior to your Separation from Service,
(iii) twelve (12) months COBRA reimbursement and (iv) vesting of all outstanding stock options held by you such that all unvested shares subject to your outstanding options shall be fully vested, but only if the event constituting
Good Reason upon which your resignation is based occurs in connection with or subsequent to and as a result of such Change of Control Transaction. 
 Except
as modified herein, all other terms of your Offer Letter shall remain in full force and effect. Any conflict between the terms of your Offer Letter and this Amendment shall be determined in favor of this Amendment. 







 Richard Kaufman 

May 8, 2017 
 Page 2 

Please sign below if the terms of this Amendment are acceptable to you, and return the fully signed letter to me. 

 

			
	By:	 	 





		 	Lisa D. Earnhardt
		 	 President and Chief Executive Officer

Intersect ENT, Inc.

	
	Understood and Agreed to by:
		
		 	 





		 	 Richard Kaufman
 SVP and Chief Operating
Officer
 Date: 5/8/17