alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 11.900 Definitions. For purposes of sections pertaining to the children's court: ( a ) *Abandon* means the leaving of a minor without communication or failing to support a minor for a period of one year or more with no indication of the parents' willingness to assume a parental role.
( b ) *Adult* means a person eighteen (18) years or older.
( c ) *Counsel* means an attorney admitted to the bar of a state or the District of Columbia or a lay advocate admitted to practice before the Court of Indian Offenses.
( d ) *Custodian* means one who has physical custody of a minor and who is providing food, shelter and supervision to the minor.
( e ) *Custody* means the power to control the day-to-day activities of the minor.
( f ) *Delinquent act* means an act which, if committed by an adult, would be designated a crime under this part or under an ordinance of the tribe.
( g ) *Detention* means the placement of a minor in a physically restrictive facility.
( h ) *Guardian* means a person other than the minor's parent who is by law responsible for the care of the minor.
( i ) *Guardian ad Litem* means a person appointed by the court to represent the minor's interests before the court.
( j ) *Juvenile offender* means a person who commits a delinquent act prior to his or her eighteenth birthday.
( k ) *Minor* means: ( 1 ) A person under 18 years of age,
( 2 ) A person 18 years of age or older concerning whom proceedings are commenced in the children's court prior to his or her eighteenth birthday, or
( 3 ) A person 18 years of age or older who is under the continuing jurisdiction of the children's court.
( l ) *Minor-in-need-of-care* means a minor who: ( 1 ) Has no parent or guardian available and willing to take care of him or her;
( 2 ) Is unwilling to allow his or her parent or guardian to take care of him or her;
( 3 ) Has suffered or is likely to suffer a physical or emotional injury, inflicted by other than accidental means, which causes or creates a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, impairment of bodily functions or emotional health;
( 4 ) Has not been provided with adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education or supervision by his or her parent, guardian or custodian;
( 5 ) Has been sexually abused;
( 6 ) Has been committing delinquent acts as a result of parental pressure, guidance or approval; or,
( 7 ) Has been committing status offenses.
( m ) *Status offense* means an offense which, if committed by an adult, would not be designated a crime under this part or under an ordinance of the tribe.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Summer motor vehicle use map.White River National Forest. Eagle--Holy Cross Ranger District, Colorado**
 
2016: Eagle | Holy Cross
 
SuDoc:A 13.28:W 58/19/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:001036876
 
December 7, 2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor DeCasta, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 134]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered November 5, 2004, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Marrero, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the testimony at the suppression hearing failed to establish probable cause for his arrest is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *see also People v Walker,*251 AD2d 356, 357 [1998]). In any event, this contention is without merit. Under the “fellow officer” rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting as a result of communication with a fellow officer in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest *(see People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416, 419-420 [1999]). Under such circumstances, an officer who witnesses the sale of narcotics need not communicate the details of the transaction to the arresting officers so long as the observing officer uses language understood by the arresting officers to mean he witnessed an exchange of drugs for money *(see People v Washington,*87 NY2d 945, 947 [1996]; *see also People v Maldonado,*86 NY2d 631, 636 [1995]). Here, the communication of the officer who observed the defendant exchange drugs for money was sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest of the defendant.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9611-9612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3674]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Modification Request Received Under the 
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit modification request received under the 
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has received a request to modify a permit issued to conduct 
activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. 
L. 95-541; Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 670).

[[Page 9612]]


DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or vies with respect to the permit modification by March 21, 2011. The 
permit modification request may be inspected by interested parties at 
the Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly A. Penhale or Nadene G. Kennedy 
at the above address or (703) 292-8030.

Description of Permit Modification Requested

    On July 21, 2008, the National Science Foundation issued a waste 
management permit (2009 WM-001) to Quark Expeditions, Inc. of 
Waterbury, VT after positing a notice in the June 9, 2008 Federal 
Register. Public comments were not received. The issued permit was for 
use of emergency provisions ashore during passenger shore excursions 
should weather deteriorate and passengers are required to stay ashore 
for an extended period of time. Emergency provisions may include tents, 
sleeping bags, cooking stoves and a car-type battery for long-range VHR 
radio communication. The applicant requests to amend their waste permit 
to including overnight camping on several of their trips to the 
Antarctic Peninsula.
    The duration of the requested modification is coincident with the 
current permit which expires on March 31, 2013.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-3674 Filed 2-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT MARK CANTOR, Petitioner

v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (COACTIV CAPITAL PARTNERS), Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 482 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 11th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 19, 2015 106411 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK, 

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NICKLES RUCKER, 

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 21, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

John P.M. Wappett, Public Defender, Lake George, for

appellant.

Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee

B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County

(Hall Jr., J.), rendered January 2, 2013, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the third degree. 

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the

third degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant

thereafter was sentenced as a second felony offender, in

accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of eight

years followed by three years of postrelease supervision, to be

served concurrently with a sentence that had been imposed upon

similar charges in Washington County. Defendant now appeals. 
-2- 106411 

Defendant claims that defense counsel was ineffective

because counsel failed to either request that defendant be

sentenced nunc pro tunc to the date that the Washington County

sentence was imposed or otherwise ensure that the conditional

release dates of the concurrent sentences would be the same. 

Even assuming this issue impacts the voluntariness of defendant's

plea and, hence, survives the unchallenged waiver of the right to

appeal, this issue is unpreserved for our review in the absence

of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Brown, 128

AD3d 1273, 1274 [2015]). To the extent that defendant's

contention amounts to a misunderstanding on his part at the time

of sentencing that the conditional release dates for both

sentences would be the same, this issue involves matters outside

the record and, as such, is more properly addressed by motion

pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Seminara, 53 AD2d 678,

678 [1976]).

 

Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSE LOUIS NEGRON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 241 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GB&T Bancshares, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gregory L. Hamby, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the bestof my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ GREGORY  L. HAMBY                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
| Gregory L. Hamby, Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                      |   |
|                                      |   |
| August 9, 2006                            |   |

 

----
# OAR Box 1158 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



### Document

Number: 

# 51 ) l-C-27
Docket Number: 

# A-88-0 2

Printed 4/28/2008 2:34:13 PM Sheet 51 of 349 p. 1P. 2 

## y- A-88-0 2 X-C-Z- 7


### A ~° * \ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y [ X*9-*pJ 3 Offic e o f Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s y^Mfr /

Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 

## u/os/*s

Mr . Charle s Nichol l 30 ^ \ Plan t Manage r Moder nHar dChrom e Servic e Company 1288 0 Eas t 9 Mil e Roa d Warren , Michiga n4808 9 Dea r Mr . Nicholl : Th e repor t o n a visi t b y Ms . BarbDuletsky

o f Midwes t Researc h Institut e t o th e Moder nHar dChrome Servic e Company plan t i n Warren , Michigan , o n Marc h14 , 1985 , ha s bee nrewritte na s requested1n you r Novembe r 4 , 1985 , telephon e conversatio nan d 1 s considere da fina l report . Non e o f th e Informatio ncontaine d1 n th e tri p repor t i s considere d confidentia l b

y th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y becaus e no clai m fo r confidentia l treatmen t wa s mad e durin g you r conversation . I f yo u hav e any

question s o r additiona l comments , pleas e contac t me a t (919 ) 541-560 1 b

y Novembe r 18 , 1985 . Sincerely ,

A l Vervaer t Industria l Studie s Branc h Emissio n Standard s an d Engineerin g Divisio n Enclosur e

/ •P. 3

Docke t No . A-88-0 2 Subcategor y

I- C Th e enclosur e t o thi s documen t ma y b e foundin docke t ite

m I-B - ^



### 3?.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________

Project No.: 0317.01.029.033 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: Steam Electric ELG CBI?

Yes

x No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

x Outgoing

Date: 9/5/14 Time: 2:00 am

x pm

Company Name: Rain for Rent ERG Staff Name: Deb Falatko

Contact Name: Saul Kasivlionis Contact Phone Number: 800-742-7246

General Subject: Frac Tank Rental

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Rain for Rent provides a variety of tanks amenable for temporary onsite storage of liquids. The tanks best suited 

for storage of bottom ash wastewater storage include:

- 21,000-gallon steel tank, $27/day

- 4,900-gallon poly tank, $29/day

- 6,900-gallon poly tank, $31/day

These prices assume short term rental (≤ 1 week) of a small number of tanks (3 to 10 tanks). Lower rates may 

be possible for a larger number of tanks or for longer term rental.

Tanks must be returned in the condition they are provided. For this application, rinsing the tank by wash hose is 

likely adequate.

Tank delivery/pick-up rates are $95/hour (port to port), plus a 22% fuel surcharge. For example, a 3 hour 

transport and delivery would require a total of 6 hours round trip.

Additional Costs (if applicable):

- Hose rental: $80/day for 3”x25’ hose

- Pump rental: $97.95/day or $293.85/week for HH80c pump (450 gpm)

- Fittings between tank and hose: $5 to $15/day
§ 170.402 What is the Tribal role in transportation planning? ( a ) All Tribes must prepare a TTIP or Tribal priority list.
( b ) Tribes operating with a Program Agreement or BIA self-determination contract, TTP agreement, or self-governance agreement may assume any of the following planning functions: ( 1 ) Coordinating with States and their political subdivisions, and appropriate planning authorities on regionally significant TTP projects;
( 2 ) Preparing NTTFI data updates and ensuring that the data is entered into the NTTFI;
( 3 ) Facilitating public involvement;
( 4 ) Performing traffic studies;
( 5 ) Developing short- and long-range transportation plans;
( 6 ) Mapping;
( 7 ) Developing and maintaining Tribal management systems;
( 8 ) Participating in transportation planning and other transportation related meetings;
( 9 ) Performing transportation planning for operational and maintenance facilities;
( 10 ) Developing TTP budgets including transportation planning cost estimates;
( 11 ) Conducting special transportation studies, as appropriate;
( 12 ) Researching rights-of-way documents for project planning; and
( 13 ) Performing preliminary project planning or project identification studies.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   OPUR1
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                Jun-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                    PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       923,610
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     111,004
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          131,904
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        172,222
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,338,740
<COMMON>                                         (1,196)
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       349,961
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             140,591
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  489,356
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            35,000
<PREFERRED>                                      21,030
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            335,355
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               40,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                             0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                        0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    47,610
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                             0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                           0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                      0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  369,889
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                 1,338,740
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       338,875
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             13,502
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      287,330
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      300,832
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          38,043
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                5,431
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   43,474
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         15,917
<NET-INCOME>                                     25,942
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       1,615
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    25,942
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         18,146
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         6,202
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           40,749
<EPS-BASIC>                                        1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.54



</TABLE>
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*ROY M. WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Second District (2nd Division)

No. 75-149

Opinion filed February 6, 1976.

*724Ralph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

John J. Bowman, State’s Attorney, of Wheaton (Malcolm F. Smith, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE DIXON

delivered the opinion of the court;

Defendant, Roy M. Watson, was indicted by a Du Page County grand jtiry for the offenses of burglary and possession of burglary tools. He was convicted of both offenses by a jury and granted probation. Subsequently his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of two to six years on the above convictions. He argues on appeal that he cannot be sentenced for both of the above offenses and that in any event the sentence for possession of burglary tools must be reduced to one to three years.

 Burglary and possession of burglary tools are separate acts not arising from the same conduct unless the possession is shown to be exclusively for the puipose of committing that burglary for which one is convicted. *(People v. Myles,*132 Ill. App. 2d 962.) In *Myles,*the defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for both burglary and possession of burglary tools because the State specifically relied on the burglary charge to prove the possession of burglary tools, thus indicating that the tools were possessed solely for the purpose of committing that particular burglary. There is no indication in the instant case that the two offenses are so directly related, so the concurrent sentences should stand.

As to the sentence for possession of burglary tools, the State concedes that it must be reduced to one to three years. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(b)(5), (c)(5).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Du Page County is affirmed and the sentence is modified.

Judgment affirmed; sentence modified.

T. J. MORAN and GUILD, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 274

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

August 5, 1999.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2488) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of

1986 to reduce individual income tax rates, to provide marriage penalty relief, to reduce taxes on savings and investments, to provide estate and gift tax relief, to provide incentives for education savings and health care, and for other

purposes. All points of order against the conference report

and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The yeas and nays shall be

considered as ordered on the question of adoption of the conference report and on any subsequent conference report or on

any motion to dispose of an amendment between the houses

on H.R. 2488. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply to the

question of adoption of the conference report and to any sub-
2

•HRES 274 EH

sequent conference report or to any motion to dispose of an

amendment between the houses on H.R. 2488.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 162.442 When will a business lease be effective? ( a ) A business lease will be effective on the date that we approve the lease, even if an appeal is filed under part 2 of this chapter.
( b ) The lease may specify a date on which the obligations between the parties to the business lease are triggered. Such date may be before or after the approval date under paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 1000.121 What is an annual funding agreement for a non-BIA program? Annual funding agreements for non-BIA programs are legally binding and mutually enforceable agreements between a bureau and a Tribe/Consortium participating in the self-governance program that contain: ( a ) A description of that portion or portions of a bureau program that are to be performed by the Tribe/Consortium; and
( b ) Associated funding, terms and conditions under which the Tribe/Consortium will assume a program, or portion of a program.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Industries, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Richard Rubin

Richard Rubin CEO and ChairmanDated: November 14, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Industries, Inc. and willbe retained by Peregrine Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.