alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §931e. Art. 131e. Prevention of authorized seizure of property

Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that one or more persons authorized to make searches and seizures are seizing, are about to seize, or are endeavoring to seize property, destroys, removes, or otherwise disposes of the property with intent to prevent the seizure thereof shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5448, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2957.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
#### § 26.30 Does the Job Training Program provide part-time training or short-term training?

Yes, part-time and short-term training are allowable provided the training assists individuals to develop skills necessary to acquire gainful employment, in accordance with the ISP, and depending upon availability of resources. Part-time means no less than six credit units per semester (based on a nine-month school year).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0147

_________________

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA, and 

SAMUEL DICKMAN, M.D., on behalf of 

themselves and their patients,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, by and through 

AUSTIN KNUDSEN, in his official capacity 

as Attorney General,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Upon consideration of the motion for leave to file an amicus brief filed by the 

American College of Obstetricians, et al., and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Amici are granted leave 

to file an amicus brief on or before August 14, 2024.

Electronically signed by:

Dirk Sandefur

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 13 2024

08/13/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0147
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

#### § 224.62 May a final proposed TERA differ from the original proposed TERA?

The final proposed TERA may or may not contain provisions that differ from the original proposed TERA submitted with the application. In either case, the 270-day review period will begin to run on the date the original complete application was received (under § 224.57).

[84 FR 69612, Dec. 18, 2019]
§ 256.8 When do I qualify for Category A assistance? You qualify for interim improvement assistance under Category A if it is not cost effective to repair the house in which you live and if either of the following is true: ( a ) Other resources to meet your housing needs exist but are not immediately available; or
( b ) You qualify for replacement housing under Category C, but there are no HIP funds available to replace your house.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00305-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.W., a Child

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. CVW-1500492

Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 18, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was originally due July 5, 2024 and was not filed. We granted appellant’s 

first motion for extension of time, extending the deadline to August 5, 2024, but the brief was not 

filed. On August 13, 2024, we ordered appellant to file, by August 28, 2024: (1) the brief; and (2) 

a written response reasonably explaining the failure to timely file a brief. In our order, we cautioned 

the appellant that if she failed to timely file a brief and written response, we would dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). 

Appellant did not respond to our order. Because appellant has failed to timely file a brief, 

this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

 

As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the inclusion or incorporation by reference in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-189394) and the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pacific Coast Oil Trust of the information from our firm’s reserves report dated March 1, 2017 and all references to our firm included in or made part of the Pacific Coast Trust Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 
|   | **NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.** |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | ** **                                              | ** ** |
|   | By:                                                     | /s/   Danny D. Simmons |
|   |                                                    | Danny   D. Simmons |
|   |                                                    | President   and Chief Operating Officer |

 

Houston, Texas

March 10, 2017

 

Please be advised that the digital document you are viewing is provided by Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (NSAI) as a convenience to our clients.  The digital document is intended to be substantively the same as the original signed document maintained by NSAI.  The digital document is subject to the parameters, limitations, and conditions stated in the original document.  In the event of any differences between the digital document and the original document, the original document shall control and supersede the digital document.

 

----
[No. 5738.]

#### Stewart v. Schiffer.

1. Appellate Practice — Burden of Showing Error.

The burden is on appellant to affirmatively establish prejudicial error. — P. 516.

2. Same.

Where on appeal it appears that the tax deeds in question were attacked on numerous grounds and were found invalid, and the testimony is not abstracted, no question is presented for determination which would justify a reversal, although it should be conceded that the description of the property as assessed was sufficiently accurate, as it cannot be said that the tax deeds were valid when they were assailed on other'grounds which the court may have found sufficient to invalidate them independent of the question of description. — P. 517.

*Appeal from the District Court of Gunnison County. Ron. Theron Stevens, Judge.*

Action between C. L. Stewart and Alfred Schiffer. From a judgment in favor of the former, the latter appeals.

*Dismissed.*

*516Messrs. Brown & Nourse, and Mr. S. D. Crump, for appellant.

Mr. Geo. T. Sumner and Messrs. Goudy & Twitchell, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee, holding for naught certain tax deeds issued to appellant. The only question argued on behalf of appellant is that the court erred in holding that the description of the property involved as listed and assessed, was not sufficiently accurate. Counsel for appellant say that the case turned entirely upon this question, and that it was upon this ground that the trial court rendered judgment in favor of appellee. From the; pleadings as abstracted it' appears that the tax deeds in question were attached upon numerous grounds. Testimony was introduced by the respective parties on' the issues made by the pleadings, and these issues, by the judgment, were found in favor of appellee. The testimony is not abstracted, and from aught that is made to appear, the invalidity of the tax deeds may have been established upon some one or more of the issues made by the pleadings other than the one relating to description. In this state of the record no question is presented for determination which would justify a reversal of the case, even if it should be conceded that the description of the property as listed and assessed was sufficiently accurate, for the obvious reason that it cannot be said that the tax deeds are valid when it appears they were assailed upon other grounds which the trial court may have concluded were sufficient to invalidate them, independent of the question of description. The burden is upon *517an appellant to affirmatively establish, prejudicial error. This is not accomplished by merely pointing out one incorrect ruling, when, nevertheless, the judgment for other reasons may be right, because error without prejudice will not work a reversal. When, therefore, it appears, as in the case at bar, that a judgment may be right for reasons other than those assigned by appellant, those _ assigned will not be considered.

The appeal is dismissed. *Dismissed.*

Chief Justice Steele and Mr. Justice Campbell concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 16, 2012 

d0515 

Order 

 

May 16, 2012 

145046 & (17)(18) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 145046 

 COA: 309285 

Oakland CC: 2012-009591-AR 

KEVIN AARON LANDAU, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0328 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID ALLEN PEIN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 3 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 26 2024

03/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0328
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John E.
Hamilton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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 operations
          of Graham Packaging Holdings Company.

Date:  May 13, 2005


                            By: /s/ John E. Hamilton
                               -----------------------------------
                               John E. Hamilton
                               Chief Financial Officer



                                       1
<PAGE>
### §8715. Naval Observatory: administration

(a) The Naval Observatory shall be attached to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

(b) The Superintendent of the Naval Observatory shall be detailed from officers in the line of the Navy serving in the grade of captain or above.

(c) The Secretary of the Navy may detail any officer of the Navy, competent for that duty, to supervise the Nautical Almanac.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 457, §7395; renumbered §8715, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(4), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7395 | 5 U.S.C. 133y–16 (note). | Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, Part III, §301, 60 Stat. 1099. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 461. | Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 852, 31 Stat. 1122 (2d par., last sentence). |
| | 5 U.S.C. 463. | R.S. 436; June 29, 1949, ch. 278, 63 Stat. 300 (2d par.). |

In subsection (a) the words "together with their respective functions, are hereby transferred from the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Department of the Navy" are omitted as executed. The words "attached to" are substituted for the words "and shall be administered, subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of the Navy, under the Chief of Naval Operations" for brevity. All orders issued by the Chief of Naval Operations in performing the duties assigned to him are issued under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy.

In subsection (b) the words "until further legislation by Congress" are omitted as surplusage.

In subsection (c) the word "detail" is substituted for the word "place". The words "in charge" are omitted as surplusage. The word "duty" is substituted for the word "service" for clarity.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7395 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About PBGC 
-  Projections Report 
-  Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) 
-  2016 MAP-21 Peer Reviews 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# 2016 MAP-21 Peer Reviews

Summary

18 Month Reports
                          - Evaluation of the Stochastic Modeling Process
                          - Evaluation of the Coding of the Models
                          - Evaluation of the Internal Consistency and Ease of Implementation of Modifications to PIMS

 

August 18, 2017
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*EARL GRANT

Decided July 13, 2004

*Richard E. Condon, Jr.,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*AnnemarieL. Braun,*special deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 83 Conn. App. 90 (AC 23215), is denied.
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).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Albuquerque Visits Australia during Final Deployment

By Lt. j.g. Justin Lemon, USS Albuquerque Public Affairs

                STIRLING, Australia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

PACOM News

articles

Albuquerque Visits Australia during Final Deployment
**Exhibit 31**

 

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Dr. Thomas C. Bache, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Composite Solutions,Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and I have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of theEvaluation Date;

 

5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controlswhich could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 
| Date:  May 14, 2004 | */s/ Dr.  Thomas C. Bache*                |   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                | Dr.  Thomas C. Bache, President & CEO |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 345 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 28, 1999.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3064) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 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 conference report shall 
be debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          55,733
<SECURITIES>                                   119,410
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                       857
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,294
<PP&E>                                         107,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 369,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,738
<BONDS>                                        324,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   369,521
<SALES>                                          5,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,001
<CGS>                                            6,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (60,943)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (29,457)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (75,907)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (129,801)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (205,708)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.64)



</TABLE>
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
### ~ 0**~ ~**  

### I:LI E--<

.......... 

# z 0 

# u**~** 

### E--<**~** 

### I:LI E--<

.......... 

# z**~** PRIMARY CRUSHER



### 0::**~** 

## :r:: [fJ**~** 

### 0:: 

### u 

## :r:: E-< 

### 0:: 0 

# z**~** 

### 0:: >--< 

### ii1 

### 0::**~ ~**  

# z**~** 

## :r:: E-< 

# 16ou SHOVEL DR LOADER

SECONDARY

CRUSHERS DRILLING

BLASTING

MINE FACES



### I APRON FEEDER 

### I

SURGE PILE 

### I 20,000 L T
### Re: Interagency Comments on Chemical Sector Rule Nick Parsons to: Cortney_Higgins 11/29/2011 11:55 AM Cc: Andrea Siefers, Ann Johnson, Jan Gilbreath, Mike Thrift, Penny Lassiter Cortney, We just discovered some additional corrections that needed to be made to the preamble . Please use this version for your review instead. Thanks.

EO12866_ChemicalRTR2060-AR02Proposal_20111129.docx Nick Parsons 11/29/2011 10:14:20 AM Hi Cortney, Attached are our responses and revisions t... From: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Thrift/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

Andrea Siefers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan Gilbreath/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 11/29/2011 10:14 AM Subject: Re: Interagency Comments on Chemical Sector Rule Hi Cortney, Attached are our responses and revisions to interagency comments on the preamble and risk assessment document. Please let me know if you have any questions. [attachment "7 Chem Source Categories Draft Risk Assessment_InteragencyComments 20111129.docx" deleted by Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "EO12866_ChemicalRTR2060-AR02Proposal_20111129.docx" deleted by Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US]