alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 70919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34770]


D&W Railroad, LLC--Acquisition Exemption--Rail Lines of D&W 
Railroad, Inc.

    D&W Railroad, LLC (D&W, LLC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified 
notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire approximately 29 
miles of rail line, including incidental trackage rights, known as the 
Waterloo Industrial Lead, from D&W Railroad, Inc. The lines to be 
acquired are located in Black Hawk, Buchanan and Fayette Counties, IA, 
as follows: (1) between milepost 332.0 at Dewar, IA, and milepost 354.3 
at Oelwein, IA; (2) between milepost 245.58 and milepost 245.0 at 
Oelwein; (3) .32 miles of wye track at Oelwein; and (4) incidental 
trackage rights over Union Pacific Railroad Company's track between 
milepost 332.0 at Dewar and milepost 326.2 at Linden Street, Waterloo, 
IA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to D&W, LLC, the lines have been operated by Iowa 
Northern Railway Company (Iowa Northern) and Iowa Northern will 
continue to operate the lines under D&W, LLC's ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D&W, LLC certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this 
transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III 
rail carrier.
    D&W, LLC reported that the parties intend to consummate the 
transaction no earlier than October 31, 2005 (the effective date of the 
exemption).
    If the 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 transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34770, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas F. McFarland, 208 South 
LaSalle Street, Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604-1112.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: November 16, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23094 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.35 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Case 1:06-cv-14971-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-18 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-18 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
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.                  

###### Agency for International Development

      ( print page 69925)    
*Summary:*                     U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collections to OBM for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to                     *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov*                     or fax to 202-395-7285. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.                

*Supplementary Information:*

*OMB Number:*                     OMB 0412-0514.                

*Form Number:*                     N/A.                

*Title:*                     USAID Regulation 1—Rules and Procedures Applicable to Commodity Transactions Financed by USAID (22 CFR part 201).                

*Type of Submission:*                     Renewal of Information Collection.                

*Purpose:*                     The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) finances transactions under Commodity Import Programs and needs to assure that the transaction complies with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In order to assure compliance and request refunds when appropriate, information is required from host country importers, suppliers receiving USAID funds, and banks making payments for USAID.                

*Annual Reporting Burden:*

                                         *Respondents:*                     335.                

                                         *Total annual responses:*                     2,643.                

                                         *Total annual hours requested:*                     1,042 hours.                

Dated: November 7, 2005.

Joanne Paskar,

Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative Services, Bureau for Management.

[FR Doc. 05-22847 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32003D0733

**2003/733/EC: Commission Decision of 10 October 2003 amending Decision 97/222/EC as regards imports of meat products from Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 3566)***Official Journal L 264 , 15/10/2003 P. 0032 - 0037*

Commission Decision

of 10 October 2003

amending Decision 97/222/EC as regards imports of meat products from Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia

(notified under document number C(2003) 3566)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/733/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003(2), and in particular Article 21a(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 97/222/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/464/EC(4), established a list of third countries or parts of third countries from which the importation of meat products is authorised.

(2) The epidemiological situation concerning classical swine fever in Estonia, Lithuania, and Slovakia has recently been assessed so that Member States should authorise the importation of fresh pigmeat from those third countries into the Community.

(3) The list of third countries or parts of third countries from which the Member States authorise the importation of meat products, as laid down in Decision 97/222/EC, should be updated with a view to including those third countries, taking into account the health situation in order to be consistent with Community rules for the importation of fresh meat as relevant for the different treatment categories of meat products.

(4) The opportunity has been taken to update the names of certain countries and add additional footnotes. For the sake of clarity, Parts I and II of the Annex to Decision 97/222/EC should be replaced in their entirety.

(5) Decision 97/222/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 97/222/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 October 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 89, 4.4.1997, p. 39.

(4) OJ L 161, 19.6.2002, p. 16.

ANNEX

Parts I and II of the Annex to Decision 97/222/EC are replaced by the following:

"PART I Description of regionalised territories as laid down for the countries listed in parts II and III

>TABLE>

PART II Third countries or parts thereof from where meat products are authorised for importation into the European Community

>TABLE>

- No certificate laid down and meat products are not authorised."
#### John D. MILLER, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-7095.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 9, 2005.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of John D. Miller to voluntarily dismiss his appeal (CAVC No. 04-762),

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Case 7:07-cr-00339-CLB Document 3 Filed 08/14/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-12 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 13 of 13
#### Parminder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73479.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Earle A. Sylva, Esq., George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Deborah N. Misir, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Julie Wilcox, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Parminder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review summary dismissals for failure to file a brief to determine whether they are appropriate, *Singh v. Ashcroft,*361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Kaur filed a notice of appeal with the BIA stating she intended to file a brief, then failed to file a brief. Summary dismissal was appropriate because Kaur’s notice of appeal lacks the requisite specificity regarding the grounds for her appeal. *See id.*at 1157.

Kaur contends that she was denied due process because the BIA did not warn her of possible summary dismissal after it received her notice of appeal. This contention lacks merit because Kaur’s counsel’s failure to apprise Kaur of the briefing requirement was not due to any deficiency in the BIA’s notice. *See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 814, 822 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Kaur failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief, we lack jurisdiction to consider these claims. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 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.
#### Veronica RIVERA MONTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71014.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Veronica Rivera Montes, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Earle B. Wilson, Esq., Leslie McKay, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Veronica Rivera Montes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings after she was ordered removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s decision as the final agency order. *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Salta v. INS,*314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002). We grant the petition and remand with instructions.

Rivera Montes contends that she did not receive notice of her removal hearing, which was sent by regular mail. She filed her motion to reopen, and the IJ denied the motion, before our decision in *Salta*established the quantum of evidence required to rebut the presumption of delivery for service by regular mail. *See id.*at *1961079 (requiring a sworn affidavit that notice was not received). Accordingly, the IJ abused his discretion by applying the evidentiary requirements for notice by certified mail in denying Rivera Montes’ motion to reopen. *See id.*

Pursuant to *Salta,*“we remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ to allow both [Rivera Montes] and the [Attorney General] to supplement the record and to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether [Rivera Montes] should be permitted to reopen her [removal proceedings].” *See id.*at 1079-80.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED with instructions.

***

 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.
#### ALLGOOD v. TOWN OF TARBORO

No. 120.

Reported: 281 N.C. 430.

Petition by Plaintiffs to rehear denied 9 October 1972.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 11, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-15212

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 99-00903-CR-PCH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRENCE SMITH,

a.k.a. Terry,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 11, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Terrence Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. Smith’s § 3582(c)(2)

motion was based on Amendment 591 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which

requires the selection of the applicable guideline be based on the statute of

conviction, rather than judicial findings of relevant conduct not made by the jury.

Smith asserts the offense level for his arson conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), was

improperly based upon the guideline applicable to first-degree murder, in light of

Amendment 591.

“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal

authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983,

984 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may reduce the sentence “of a defendant

who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” provided that

“such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy

statements provide that a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence, pursuant to

§ 3582(c)(2), where “the guideline range applicable to that defendant has

subsequently been lowered as a result of” a covered amendment to the Guidelines.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1).

2
Amendment 591 became effective on November 1, 2000, and Smith was

sentenced on July 30, 2001. Therefore, although the Amendment was made

retroactive by incorporation into U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), it does not constitute a

subsequent amendment within § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement

because it was already in effect at the time he was sentenced. See United States v.

Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating that a pro se inmate’s

motion “could fit under § 3582(c) only if he was arguing his sentence should be

modified based on a subsequent sentencing guideline amendment”). Moreover, we

previously rejected Smith’s challenge to the calculation of his offense level by

reference to the first-degree murder guideline in his direct appeal. See United

States v. Smith, No. 01-14427, manuscript op. at 18-19 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2003).

Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3