alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Geology of the Fort Laramie area, Platte and Goshen Counties, Wyoming

By: Laura W. McGrew

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1141F

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (3725 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (12489 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 2**                            (210 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 3**                            (445 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

503 

CA 14-01938 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

AMY SHAUL, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 

OF ADDISON HERNQUIST, AN INFANT, 

CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HAMBURG CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

 

HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (KINSEY A. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

VIOLA, CUMMINGS & LINDSAY, LLP, NIAGARA FALLS (MATTHEW T. MOSHER OF

COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley

Troutman, J.), entered July 14, 2014. The order granted the

application of claimant for leave to serve a late notice of claim. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court

did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant’s application for

leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal

Law § 50-e (5). Although claimant failed to demonstrate a reasonable

excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of

Hampson v Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 114 AD3d 790, 791; Brown v City

of Buffalo, 100 AD3d 1439, 1440), that failure “ ‘is not fatal where .

. . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of

prejudice to [respondent]’ ” (Casale v Liverpool Cent. Sch. Dist., 99

AD3d 1246, 1246-1247; see Matter of Maciejewski v North Collins Cent.

Sch. Dist., 124 AD3d 1347, 1348). Here, claimant “made a persuasive

showing that [respondent] acquired [timely] actual knowledge of the

essential facts constituting the claim . . . [and respondent has] made

no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it]

substantial prejudice” (Matter of Hall v Madison-Oneida County Bd. of

Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [internal quotation marks

omitted]; see § 50-e [5]). In addition, contrary to respondent’s

contention, we cannot conclude at this stage of the action that the

claim is “patently meritless” (Matter of Catherine G. v County of

Essex, 3 NY3d 175, 179; see generally Terrigino v Village of 
-2- 503 

CA 14-01938 

Brockport, 88 AD3d 1288, 1288-1289). 

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### §742d. Investigations; preparation and dissemination of information; reports

(a) 1 The Secretary shall conduct continuing investigations, prepare and disseminate information, and make periodical reports to the public, to the President, and to Congress, with respect to the following matters:

(1) The production and flow to market of fish and fishery products domestically produced, and also those produced by foreign producers which affect the domestic fisheries;

(2) The availability and abundance and the biological requirements of the fish and wildlife resources;

(3) The competitive economic position of the various fish and fishery products with respect to each other, and with respect to competitive domestic and foreign-produced commodities;

(4) The collection and dissemination of statistics on commercial and sport fishing;

(5) The collection and dissemination of statistics on the nature and availability of wildlife, progress in acquisition of additional refuges and measures being taken to foster a coordinated program to encourage and develop wildlife values;

(6) The improvement of production and marketing practices in regard to commercial species and the conduct of educational and extension services relative to commercial and sport fishing, and wildlife matters;

(7) Any other matters which in the judgment of the Secretary are of public interest in connection with any phases of fish and wildlife operations.

(Aug. 8, 1956, ch. 1036, §5, 70 Stat. 1121.)

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

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions of law requiring submittal to Congress of any annual, semiannual, or other regular periodic report listed in House Document No. 103–7 (in which a report to Congress required under this section is listed on page 54), see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Transfer of functions to Secretary of Commerce from Secretary of the Interior by Reorg. Plan No. 4 of 1970, eff. Oct. 3, 1970, 35 F.R. 15627, 84 Stat. 2090, see note set out under section 742b of this title.

1 So in original. No subsec. (b) has been enacted.
### §666e. Administration of acquired lands

Any lands acquired by the Secretary of the Interior under the terms of this section and section 666d of this title, if located within or adjacent to an existing wildlife refuge or reservation, immediately shall become a part of such refuge or reservation and shall be administered under the laws and regulations applicable thereto, and, if not so located, may be administered as a migratory-waterfowl management area, refuge, reservation, or breeding ground in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 14, 1946 (60 Stat. 1080), and Acts supplementary thereto.

(Oct. 6, 1949, ch. 619, §2, 63 Stat. 708.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 14, 1946, referred to in text, is act Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 965, 60 Stat. 1080, which amended act Mar. 10, 1934, ch. 55, by generally amending sections 1 to 6, which are classified to sections 661 to 665 and 666 of this title, and by adding sections 7 to 9, which are classified to sections 666a to 666c of this title. Subsequent acts added sections 5A and 10 of act Mar. 10, 1934, which are classified to sections 665a and 666c–1 of this title, respectively.
§ 650.117 Content of design studies. ( a ) The detail of studies shall be commensurate with the risk associated with the encroachment and with other economic, engineering, social or environmental concerns.
( b ) Studies by highway agencies shall contain: ( 1 ) The hydrologic and hydraulic data and design computations,
( 2 ) The analysis required by § 650.115(a), and
( 3 ) For proposed direct Federal highway actions, the reasons, when applicable, why FEMA criteria (44 CFR 60.3, formerly 24 CFR 1910.3) are demonstrably inappropriate.
( c ) For encroachment locations, project plans shall show: ( 1 ) The magnitude, approximate probability of exceedance and, at appropriate locations, the water surface elevations associated with the overtopping flood or the flood of § 650.115(a)(1)(ii), and
( 2 ) The magnitude and water surface elevation of the base flood, if larger than the overtopping flood.
EXHIBIT 99.1



BlastGard International Reports First Quarter 2009 Results





BlastGard International Reports

First Quarter 2009 Results



CLEARWATER FL, May 15, 2009 - BlastGard International (OTCBB; BLGA) reported financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.



Revenues for the first quarter were $12,091 compared to $12,056 reported in the first quarter of 2008. For the first quarter of 2009, BlastGard International reported a net loss of $271,142 or $(0.01) per share based on the weighted average of 42,557,478 shares outstanding compared to a net loss of $527,366 or $(0.01) per share reported in the first quarter of 2008 based on the weighted average shares outstanding of 37,061,915.



About BlastGard International, Inc.



BlastGard International, Inc. creates designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary blast mitigation materials. The Company's patent-pending BlastWrap® technology effectively mitigates blast effects and suppresses post-blast fires. This unique technology is being used to create new, finished products or to retrofit to existing products. BlastWrap® is a market leading product from which blast protection solutions are built to save lives and reduce damage to valuable assets from explosions. Additional information on BlastGard can be found at http://www.blastgardintl.com.



``Safe Harbor'' statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Except for historical information, all of the statements, expectations and assumptions contained in the foregoing are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. It is possible that the assumptions made by management are not necessarily the most likely and may not materialize. In addition, other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include the following: the Company's ability to market its products; the Company's ability to obtain additional funding; the Company's ability to obtain regulatory approvals on new products, the general economy; competitive factors; ability to attract and retain personnel; the price of the Company's stock; and other risk factors. The Company takes no obligation to update or correct forward-looking statements.



Company Contact:

BlastGard International, Inc.

Michael J. Gordon

(727) 592-9400
#### § 103.41 [Reserved]
#### Szuna S. MAYENGO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6220.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2002.

Decided May 8, 2002.

Szuna S. Mayengo, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Szuna S. Mayengo appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) petition as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and Mayengo’s informal appellate brief. Because Mayengo failed to challenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s ruling, he has not preserved this issue for our review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In any event, it is clear that the district court correctly found Mayengo’s § 2254 petition untimely. Accordingly, we deny Mayengo’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for a certifícate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
### §758e. Central, Western, and South Pacific Ocean fisheries development program

The Secretary of Commerce (hereafter referred to in sections 758e to 758e–5 of this title as the "Secretary") is authorized to carry out, directly or by contract, with the Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation or other agency or organization, a program for the development of the tuna and other latent fisheries resources of the Central, Western, and South Pacific Ocean. The program shall include, but not be limited to, exploration for, and stock assessment of, tuna and other fish; improvement of harvesting techniques; gear development; biological resource monitoring; and an economic evaluation of the potential for tuna and other fisheries in such area.

(Pub. L. 92–444, §2, Sept. 29, 1972, 86 Stat. 745; Pub. L. 94–343, §1(1), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 809; Pub. L. 95–295, §1(1), June 16, 1978, 92 Stat. 319; Pub. L. 98–498, title IV, §410, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2309.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–498 substituted "Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation" for "Pacific Tuna Development Foundation".

1978—Pub. L. 95–295 inserted provision authorizing contracts for programs with the Pacific Tuna Development Foundation or other agency or organization.

1976—Pub. L. 94–343 struck "three year" before "program for".

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 92–444, §1, Sept. 29, 1972, 86 Stat. 744, provided: "That this Act [enacting this section and sections 758e–1 to 758e–5 of this title] may be cited as the 'Central, Western, and South Pacific Fisheries Development Act'."
### §6109. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter $6,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2028.

#### (b) Use of funds

Of the amounts made available under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be expended for projects carried out at a location outside of the United States.

(Pub. L. 106–247, §10, July 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 597; Pub. L. 109–363, title III, §302(i), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2077; Pub. L. 116–9, title VII, §7002, Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 118–51, §2(c), Apr. 24, 2024, 138 Stat. 1005.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2024—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–51 substituted "2028" for "2023".

2019—Pub. L. 116–9 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to approriations for fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

2006—Pub. L. 109–363 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, substituted "for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 the amount specified for that fiscal year in subsection (b)" for "$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005", and added subsecs. (b) to (d).
Editorial Note on Part 635
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 635 appear at 67 FR 75924, Dec. 10, 2002.

§ 635.113 Bid opening and bid tabulations. ( a ) All bids received in accordance with the terms of the advertisement shall be publicly opened and announced either item by item or by total amount. If any bid received is not read aloud, the name of the bidder and the reason for not reading the bid aloud shall be publicly announced at the letting. Negotiation with contractors, during the period following the opening of bids and before the award of the contract shall not be permitted.
( b ) The State DOT shall prepare and forward tabulations of bids to the Division Administrator. These tabulations shall be certified by a responsible State DOT official and shall show: ( 1 ) Bid item details for at least the low three acceptable bids and
( 2 ) The total amounts of all other acceptable bids.
( c ) In the case of a design-build project, the following requirements apply: ( 1 ) All proposals received must be opened and reviewed in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. The State DOT must use its own procedures for the following: ( i ) The process of handling proposals and information;
( ii ) The review and evaluation of proposals;
( iii ) The submission, modification, revision and withdrawal of proposals; and
( iv ) The announcement of the successful offeror.
( 2 ) The State DOT must submit a post-award tabulation of proposal prices to the FHWA Division Administrator. The tabulation of price proposal information may include detailed pricing information when available or lump sum price information if itemized prices are not used.
( d ) In the case of a CM/GC project, the requirements of this section do not apply. See subpart E of this part for approval procedures.
[56 FR 37004, Aug. 2, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 75925, Dec. 10, 2002; 81 FR 86943, Dec. 2, 2016]
#### Truman Buck, appellee, v. John Stuben et al., appellants.

Filed December 18, 1900.

No. 9,320.

1. Finding: Evidence. A finding made on evidence fairly'conflicting will not be disturbed on review.

Reversal: Prejudicial, Error. Prejudicial error must be shown, to justify the reversal of a decision of the trial court.

Appeal from the district court for Sarpy county. Heai'd below before Slabaugh, J.

*Affirmed.*

*John P. Breen*and *Charles 8. LoMngier,*for appellants.

*James B. Meikle*and *Frank 11. Caines, contra.*

Nor val, O. J.

This is an appeal from an order confirming a judicial sale of real estate sold in mortgage foreclosure. The decree under which the sale was made contained the following: “And it is further ordered that the part of said premises lying outside of the light of way of said Omaha & Southwestern Railway Company be first offered for *71sale, and in case that part shall not sell for enough to pay the amount due the plaintiff, that the same shall be first sold separately, but if necessary, the whole parcel of land described in said mortgage shall be sold and the proceeds applied in payment of the plaintiff’s claim as aforesaid.” No further description of the right of way mentioned is contained in the decree, though a description of the whole tract is given by government survey. It is objected that the provision quoted is not sufficiently definite to enable the sheriff to ascertain from the decree, and point out to intending purchasers the tract of land lying outside of said right of way. A further objection was made to the appraised value of the land, it being claimed that it was appraised much below its actual value, so much so that fraud must be presumed in such appraisement. On the hearing of the motion in the court below to set aside the sale the affidavits of about one hundred persons were taken by the parties relative to the value of the property in question, which were conflicting. There was ample evidence adduced on which the district court was justified in finding that the property was not appraised too low, and this it did. This finding we are not disposed to set aside. *Nebraska Loan & Building*Ass’n *v. Marshall,*51 Nebr., 534.

The objection first urged against the sale can not be successfully presented, since it is not shown that the complaining party has been prejudiced by the decision. *Kane v. Jonasen,*55 Nebr., 757. On the contrary, the record discloses that the entire tract, including the right of way, did not sell for enough to pay the debt, and defendants were interested alone in the portion not included in the right of way. The description could not have prejudiced them. Moreover, the description of the right of way in the decree was sufficient, inasmuch as a stranger could easily have located the right of way from the railroad constructed therein. The order assailed is

Affirmed.
### §695j. Conformity of water use with California laws; construction of sections 695d to 695j–1

The use of all water furnished by the Secretary of the Interior under sections 695e and 695i of this title shall be subject to and not inconsistent with the laws of the State of California relating to priorities of deliveries and use of water. Nothing contained in sections 695d to 695j–1 of this title shall be construed as an allocation of water.

(Aug. 27, 1954, ch. 1012, §7, 68 Stat. 880.)
LVL
                           Garden Botanika CyberStore
                               Letter of Interest

This Letter of Interest between LVL Communications, Inc. ("LVL") and Garden
Botanika ("GBOT") summarizes their mutual interest in forming a joint venture
and/or creating a licensing agreement to develop and operate a retail website
under the GBOT name dedicated to selling GBOT and compatible products to
consumers over the Internet. This Letter of Interest is strictly preliminary and
is intended primarily to establish a basis for future definitive discussions.
This Letter of Interest is non-binding on either party.

BUSINESS PURPOSE: To develop and operate an Internet website ("CyberStore")
dedicated to exclusively selling GBOT and compatible products to retail customer
for profit.

ENTERPRISE STRUCTURE: A U.S. corporation or limited liability company (the
"CyberStore Enterprise") funded through equity and debt supplied by LVL or its
investors. LVL will be the operating partner responsible for CyberStore
development, operation and expansion, with sole responsibility for financing
website development and operating losses ($2 million budgeted). GBOT will make
available the full GBOT branded product line to the CyberStore Enterprise and
will be responsible for product inventory and order fulfillment.

AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH A FEASIBILITY STUDY: By signing this Letter of
Interest, GBOT authorizes LVL Communications to begin a Feasibility Study at
LVL's expense to analyze GBOT's current infrastructure and business processes as
a basis for forming a CyberStore Enterprise dedicated to GBOT products. The
intent of this study is to create a business case for managing and maintaining
GBOT's online commerce in an outsource model. This study does not obligate GBOT
to move forward on the formation of a CyberStore Enterprise, but is intended to
provide a framework for future discussions.

PARTNERSHIP WITH ORACLE:
Oracle has entered into a tentative agreement with LVL to provide services and
products required to implement the technical back-end development of these
CyberStores. Oracle has agreed to partner with LVL in developing the initial
Feasibility Study required as the first part of building an on-line retail
presence.

The Letter of Interest is only an expression of mutual intent in negotiating a
Definitive Agreement regarding the formation of the CyberStore Enterprise along
the lines described above. Neither party is obligated to move forward in this
proposed relationship, all terms and conditions are subject to modification and
may change substantially in the Definitive Agreement (if any).



LVL Communications:                     Garden Botanika:

/S/ Calbert Lai                         /S/ Arlee Jensen
Calbert Lai                             Arlee Jensen
Chairman & CEO                          Senior Vice President, Merchandising and
                                        Marketing
#### Harbor and Suburban Building and Savings Association, Respondent. v. The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, of London, England, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Scott and Dowling, JJ., dissenting.
#### Salvatore Barbieri, Respondent, v. Rochester Vulcanite Pavement Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.