alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#   2019 NSDUH Annual National Report

Read key findings from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) on substance use, mental health, and treatment by age group. Metrics in the report cover the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population ages 12 and older. The report covers both current conditions and trends over time.Along with the full report, a set of slides is available that displays figures from the report.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health

                        -  View/Download Files 
                        -  More Like This 
                        -  Report Resources 

### View/Download Files

                                    - 2019 NSDUH Annual National Report(pdf | 2.84 MB)
                                    - 2019 NSDUH Annual National Report(htm | 913.63 KB)
                                    - 2019 NSDUH Annual National Report Slides (pptx | 6.62 MB)
                                    - 2019 NSDUH Annual National Report Slides (pdf | 5.36 MB)

### More Like This

### Report Resources

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA)'s page about NSDUH.

 < Back to Main content
~D S~. 

# (i:)

q~ PRO~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 October 17, 2014
Teec Nos Pos Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation P.O. Box 106 Teecnospos, AZ 86514 ATTN: ADMIN OFFICE Subject: Public documents atthe Teec Nos Pos Chapter for public inspection Dear Siror Madam: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency sentyou apackage containing a number ofdocuments regarding the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation nearthe city ofAneth, San Juan County, Utah. Two ofthese documents contained an error, and need to be replaced. Please replace the following documents in the package previously sentto you with the enclosed documents: 1. PUBLIC INFORMATION SHEET 2. AMBIENTAIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT & FACT SHEET Yourassistance with this matter is greatly appreciated. Feel freeto contact me at (415) 947-4156 or kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov ifyou have any questions.

Environmental Engineer Air Division Shaheerah Permits Office

Enclosures
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A0288. JOHN THOMPSON v. THE STATE.

John Thompson was convicted of aggravated sodomy and related offenses in

1991. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in Thompson v. State, 203 Ga.App.

339, 341 (416 SE2d 755) (1992).

In 2024, Thompson filed an extraordinary motion for newtrial, which the trial

court denied on June 24, 2024. Thompson filed a notice of appeal on August 21, 2024.

We lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, Thompson’s appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within

30 days of entry of the judgment or trial court order sought to be appealed. OCGA §

5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute

requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Ebeling v. State, 355 Ga. App. 469,

469 (844 SE2d 518) (2020). Thompson’s notice of appeal was filed 58 days after entry

of the trial court’s order and is thus untimely.

Second, an appeal from an order denying an extraordinary motion for new trial

must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(7), (b); Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga.App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129)(1997). “Compliance

with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept.of Human

Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Thompson’s failure to follow

September 16, 2024
the discretionary review procedure thus deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct

appeal. See Bradberry v. State, 315 Ga. App. 434, 437 (727 SE2d 208) (2012).

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/16/2024
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.15
Summary of Director Compensation for Fiscal 2015
Each member of the Board of Directors who is not an employee of Tredegar or any of its subsidiaries receives the following annual retainers, payable in equal quarterly installments in arrears:
	
				
	Non-Employee Director
	$
	113,000
	


	Chairman of the Board
	$
	65,000
	


	Audit Committee Chairperson
	$
	16,000
	


	Non-Chair Member of the Audit Committee
	$
	9,500
	


	Executive Compensation Committee Chairperson
	$
	11,000
	


	Non-Chair Member of the Executive Compensation Committee
	$
	7,000
	


	Nominating and Governance Committee Chairperson
	$
	7,500
	


	Non-Chair Member of the Nominating and Governance Committee
	$
	4,500
	


	Executive Committee Chairperson
	$
	9,000
	


	Non-Chair Member of the Executive Committee
	$
	4,500
	





The retainer paid to non-employee directors is paid in cash of $56,500 and in the form of a stock award of $56,500.  The retainer paid to the Chairman of the Board is paid in cash of $32,500 and in the form of a stock award of $32,500.  The stock award is determined based on the closing price of Tredegar common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange composite on the date of grant.
Together, America Prospers

Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural 

Communities and Households Grants

What does this 

program do?

This program helps small, 

financially-distressed 

rural communities pay for 

predevelopment feasibility 

studies, design, and technical 

assistance for proposed water 

and waste disposal projects.

Who can apply?

• Most state and local 

governments

• Nonprofit organizations

• Federally-recognized Tribes

What is an eligible area?

Eligible service areas must be rural, 

considered financially distressed, and:

• Be located in cities, towns, or 

unincorporated areas with populations 

of 2,500 or fewer, according to the 

most recent U.S. Census data

• Have median household incomes 

either below the poverty line - or less 

than 80 percent of the statewide, 

nonmetropolitan median household 

income - using 2006 - 2010 American 

Community Survey data.

How can funds be used?

Grant funds can be used to pay for 

eligible predevelopment planning costs 

and activities, including:

• Feasibility studies to support 

applications for funding water or 

waste disposal projects

• Preliminary design and 

engineering analysis

• Technical assistance to develop 

applications for financial assistance

Are there additional requirements?

Yes. Predevelopment planning costs 

must be related to a proposed project 

that:

• Builds, enlarges, extends, or improves 

rural water, wastewater, solid waste, or 

storm water disposal facilities

• Builds or relocates public or private 

buildings, roads, bridges, fences, or 

utilities, or makes other improvements 

necessary for the successful operation 

or protection of facilities

How do we get started?

• Applications are accepted yearround through your local USDA Rural 

Development office. A list is available 

at this link: https://go.usa.gov/xtpEe.

• Program resources such as 

guidance, forms, certifications, 

and so on, are available at this link: 

https://go.usa.gov/xzBQD.

What governs this program?

• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

7, Part 1774, available at this link: 

https://tinyurl.com/52byeruf

• Section 306 of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act, 

available at this link: 

https://go.usa.gov/xMT4s

NOTE: Because information changes, always consult official program instructions 

or contact your local Rural Development office for help. A list is available at this 

link: https://go.usa.gov/xJHPE. You will find additional resources, forms, and program 

information at https://rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, 

and lender.

Last Updated November 2022
ELECTRONIC RECORD

U7?-/5"

OM-IS

0%2-tS

COA # 02-13-00247-CR OFFENSE: 29.03

STYLE: Charles Camp v. The State ofTexas COUNTY: Tarrant

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 297th District Court

DATE: 12/11/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1324667R

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 07W5

©tiwr

STYLE: Charles Camp v. The State of Texas

PRO SE- Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: Q^l^lp4?JJJUDGE: A ^

WstsU^Z***-

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
SECOND AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            CANANDAIGUA BRANDS, INC.
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


The Canandaigua Brands, Inc. Supplemental  Executive Retirement Plan, as amended
(the "SERP"), is hereby further amended as follows:

                                        I

     The name of the SERP is  hereby  changed  to  "Constellation  Brands,  Inc.
     Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan."

                                       II

     The reference to "Canandaigua  Brands, Inc. (the "Company")" in Section 1.1
     of the SERP is hereby replaced with "Canandaigua  Brands,  Inc.  (effective
     September 19, 2000, renamed Constellation Brands, Inc.) (the "Company")."

                                       III

     The reference to the  "Canandaigua  Brands,  Inc. 401(k) and Profit Sharing
     Plan"  in  Section  1.2 of the SERP is  hereby  changed  to  "Constellation
     Brands, Inc. 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan, f/k/a Canandaigua Brands, Inc.
     401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan."

                                       IV

     Except as amended herein, the SERP, as adopted,  shall remain in full force
     and effect.


Executed, in multiple originals, this 21st day of December, 2000.


                                        CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC.


                                        By: /s/ George H. Murray
                                            --------------------------------
                                            George H. Murray,
                                            Chief Human Resources Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1898

ALAIN TSOBGNY,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-545-788)

Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 4, 2005

 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant

Director, Joshua E. Braunstein, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Alain Tsobgny, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Tsobgny fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Tsobgny

cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of

removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the

IJ’s finding that Tsobgny failed to establish that it was more

likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as amended by this Form
10-K/A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Dennis Conroy, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to section 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 the Company.


By: /s/ Dennis Conroy
    --------------------------
Name: Dennis Conroy
      Chief Accounting Officer

Date: February 6, 2004
#### § 592.460 Appeal certificates.

Immediately after an appeal inspection is completed, an appeal certificate shall be issued to show that the original inspection was sustained or was not sustained. Such certificate shall supersede any previously issued certificate for the product involved and shall clearly identify the number and date of the superseded certificate. The issuance of the appeal certificate may be withheld until any previously issued certificate and all copies have been returned when such action is deemed necessary to protect the interest of the Government. When the appeal inspection program employee assigns a different class to the lot or determines that a net weight shortage exists, the lot shall be retained pending correction of the labeling or approval of the product disposition by the District Office.
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.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE:

9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 15, 2011.

# PLACE:

NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

# STATUS:

The TWO items are open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

8046A Crash During Attempted Go-Around After Landing, East Coast Jets Flight 81, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 125-800A, N818MV, Owatonna, Minnesota, July 31, 2008.

7802E Most Wanted Board Order—Board Members will consider beginning to use the NTSB notation (written voting) process followed by a press conference to announce the annual Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements, rather than the past practice of deliberating the contents of the list at a meeting of the Board.

# NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, March 11, 2011.

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *http://www.ntsb.gov.*

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403.

Dated: March 4, 2011.

Candi R. Bing,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2011-5356 Filed 3-7-11; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

ORTHOVITA, INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

I, Antony Koblish, Chief Executive Officer of Orthovita, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
Company), hereby certify that:

(1) The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Antony KoblishChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: March 17, 2008
### §4011. Export trade promotion duties of Secretary of Commerce

To promote and encourage export trade, the Secretary may issue certificates of review and advise and assist any person with respect to applying for certificates of review.

(Pub. L. 97–290, title III, §301, Oct. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 1240.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 97–290, title III, §312, Oct. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 1245, provided that:

"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this title [enacting this subchapter] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 8, 1982].

"(b) Section 302 and section 303 [enacting sections 4012 and 4013 of this title] shall take effect 90 days after the effective date of the rules and regulations first promulgated under section 310 [enacting section 4020 of this title]."

#### Report on Export Trading Companies

Pub. L. 100–418, title II, §2311, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1346, directed Secretary of Commerce to submit a report, not later than 18 months after Aug. 23, 1988, to Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of Senate, and to Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Committee on the Judiciary of House of Representatives, on activities of Department of Commerce to promote and encourage formation of new and operation of existing and new export promotion intermediaries, including export management companies, export trade associations, bank export trading companies, and export trading companies, with report to include a survey of activities of export management companies, export trade associations, and those bank export trading companies and export trading companies established pursuant to amendments made by title II of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and pursuant to title III of that Act, but not to contain any information subject to the protections from disclosure provided in that Act.

#### Federal Coal Export Commission

Pub. L. 99–83, title XIII, §1304, Aug. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 282, provided for establishment, membership, etc., of Federal Coal Export Commission, required Commission to convene at least four times a year for consultation on activities leading to increased cooperation among entities involved in United States coal exports, with goal of expanding the United States share of international market, specified activities of Commission, including examination of potential for small- and medium-sized companies to enter export coal trade through exporting trading companies, directed Commission to report its finding and recommendations to President and Congress within two years after its first meeting, and terminated Commission upon submission of its report.
(40 South. 44.)

No. 15,924.

#### STATE v. STEVENSON.

(Jan. 2, 1906.)

Bigamy — Instructions.

A charge that a marriage contracted with a woman within 10 months after her divorce is a nullity, and that the other contracting party is not guilty of bigamy in thereafter marrying another woman, unless it appears that he had continued to live with the first contractee as her husband until after the expiration of such 10 months, is more favorable to the defendant on trial than he had a right to expect.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from First. Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Thomas Fletcher Bell, Judge.

Wesley Stevenson was convicted of bigamy, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Wise, Randolph & Rendall, for appellant. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and James Martin Foster, Dist. Atty., for the State.

MONROE, J.

Defendant, being on trial for bigamy, contended that, having contracted the alleged bigamous marriage within 10 months after the other contracting party had been divorced from her former husband (he being still living), the marriage was null as in contravention of Civ. Code, art. 137, and he excepted to the following charge, to wit:

> “Our law, gentlemen of the jury, declares that a wife shall not be at liberty to contract another marriage until 10 months after the dissolution of her former marriage, and anything done in contravention of this prohibitory law is a nullity. I charge that if you believe, from the evidence, that Alice Maxey, the woman named in the indictment as being the first wife of the accused, was married to Philip Martín, and was not divorced from him (he being still alive) more than 10 months prior to the alleged marriage with the accused, you will find the accused not guilty; but I further charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you find from the evidence, that the accused went through a form of marriage with her on the 19th day of March, 1903, and they continued to live together as man and wife after the above-named period of 10 months had elapsed, and that he married this woman Lucy Elbert, or Lucy -, on or about the 15th day of November, 1905, then you will find the accused guilty of the crime charged in the indictment.”

The article of the Code relied on by the defendant reads:

> “The wife shall not be at liberty to contract another marriage until ten months after the dissolution of the previous marriage.”»

*403In Succession of Benton, 106 La. 503, 31 South. 126, 59 L. R. A. 135, this court said:

> “We are, nevertheless, of the opinion that said article is not framed in such terms of prohibition, especially when considered in connection with articles 115 and 960 of the Code, as to justify the conclusion that a marriage entered into in contravention of its provisions is stricken with nullity.”

, We adhere to the view thus expressed, which is not without support. Peyroux’s Revised Civ. Code, note to article 137 (citing 1 Toullier, p. 420, viiId. pp. 572, 868; Amos’ Science of Law, p. 125); 2 McClain, Cr. Law, 1074. The charge complained of was more favorable than the accused had a right to expect.

Judgment affirmed.