alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Geology of uranium deposits in the Front Range, Colorado

By: P.K. SimsD. M. Sheridan

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1159

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (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.
§ 206.20 What must be included in an application? In applying for a grant, an applicant shall: ( a ) Follow the procedures and meet the requirements stated in subpart C of 34 CFR part 75 (EDGAR-Direct Grant Programs);
( b ) Submit a grant application that: ( 1 ) Covers a period of five years unless extraordinary circumstances warrant a shorter period; and
( 2 ) Includes an annual budget of not less than $180,000;
( c ) Include a management plan that contains: ( 1 ) Assurances that the staff has a demonstrated knowledge of and will be sensitive to the unique characteristics and needs of the migrant and seasonal farmworker population; and
( 2 ) Provisions for: ( i ) Staff inservice training;
( ii ) Training and technical assistance;
( iii ) Staff travel;
( iv ) Student travel;
( v ) Interagency coordination; and
( vi ) Project evaluation; and
( d ) Provide the following assurances: ( 1 ) The grantee will develop and implement a plan for identifying, informing, and recruiting eligible participants who are most in need of the academic and supporting services and financial assistance provided by the project.
( 2 ) The grantee will develop and implement a plan for identifying and using the resources of the participating IHE and the community to supplement and enhance the services provided by the project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(a) and (d)-(f))
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1810-0055) [46 FR 35075, July 6, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 24920, July 1, 1987; 57 FR 60407, Dec. 18, 1992; 75 FR 65770, Oct. 26, 2010]
#### § 335.8 [Reserved]
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States Senior District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1731

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of

Missouri.

Sherman D. Hampton, *

 * UNPUBLISHED

Appelllant. *

___________

Submitted: September 12, 1997

 Filed: October 14, 1997 

 

___________

Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit

Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sherman D. Hampton appeals from a judgment of the

district court entered after a jury found him guilty of 1

conspiring to manufacture, manufacturing and attempting
-2-

to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. We affirm.
-3-

While on patrol on April 15, 1996, shortly before

midnight, deputy sheriff Mike Crocker saw a car with its

trunk open in back of a storage shed and Deborah Floyd

and Hampton standing in the open door to the shed. When

Crocker pulled up to the shed, Floyd threw a duffle bag

in the car's trunk and got in the car. Crocker approached

Hampton and asked what he was doing at the shed. Hampton

became abusive, but gave Crocker his license, as did

Floyd and Hampton's ex-wife, who was also in the car.

After conducting a license check, Crocker went back to

the car and asked Hampton, who was then in the driver's

seat, to step out of the vehicle. Hampton refused and

drove off. Crocker and two other patrol cars pursued

Hampton for about ten minutes before finally stopping the

car and arresting Floyd and Hampton. On searching

Hampton, officers found a bag of methamphetamine, a

receipt for $1206 worth of Mini-Thins, which is an

ingredient used in the production of methamphetamine, and

receipts for other items used in the manufacturing

process. On executing a search warrant on the shed,

officers found two cases of Mini-Thins and a laboratory

for manufacturing methamphetamine. 

In addition to the testimony of Crocker and other

officers involved in the arrest and search, at trial

Floyd testified that she and Hampton had manufactured

methamphetamine a couple of weeks before the arrest and

that she was with Hampton when he purchased Mini-Thins,

which they were going to use to make more

methamphetamine.

Contrary to Hampton's arguments on appeal, there was

overwhelming evidence to support the conspiracy,
-4-

manufacturing, and attempt verdicts. 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 
-5-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
ExpressJet Holdings, Inc.




	
Exhibit 10.1










First Amendment to Long-Term Incentive Plan


            WHEREAS, ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) has adopted the ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”); and


            WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined
that it would be in the best interests of the Company to amend the ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan (the
“LTIP”) to permit awards under the LTIP to be paid in shares of common stock issuable, or other forms of awards
granted, under the 2007 Plan;





            NOW, THEREFORE, the LTIP is hereby amended, effective
immediately, as follows:


            1.         Paragraph
5(e) of the LTIP is amended to read as follows:





“Form of Payment. Each Incentive Bonus and portions thereof shall be paid in cash, or in shares of the
Company’s Common Stock, or in a combination of both, as determined by the Plan Administrator in its sole discretion. Any
payments made in shares of Common Stock may be paid under either the Company’s 2002 Stock Incentive Plan or its 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan, or a combination of both, and shall be subject to such restrictions as the Plan Administrator shall determine, in
its sole discretion, and shall be reflected in a Restricted Stock Agreement.”





            2.         Except as
modified herein, the Plan is hereby specifically ratified and affirmed.


            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment to the
ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan is executed for and on behalf and in the name of the Company by its duly
authorized officer on September 12, 2007.



	
                

	
            

	


 EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS, INC.


	

                                      

	
            

	


 /s/ James B.
Ream                               


			
James B. Ream

 President and Chief Executive Officer
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, presiding pursuant to the consent of the parties in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994 & Supp. 1998).



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3490

___________ Ira Russey, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Correction, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 15, 2001 Filed: February 21, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and STROM, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ira Russey was convicted of first-degree murder in state court and was sentenced to a prison term of forty years. He appeals the denial by the District Court 2 of his petition for federal habeas relief. The sole issue in this appeal is whether Russey's-2-

conviction for the murder of his wife is supported by sufficient evidence to satisfy the constitutional standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (holding that evidence is constitutionally sufficient if, viewed in light most favorable to the state, "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."). The District Court found that the state's evidence in this case satisfies the Jackson v. Virginiastandard. For reversal, Russey argues that the shotgun blast he leveledat his wife, which severed her arm and inflicted multiple other serious injuries, was not the cause of her death. Instead, he contends, grossly negligent treatment by her medical providers, leading to her death from pneumonia, constituted an intervening andsupervening cause that absolves him from criminal liability for murder. We disagree. Under Arkansas law, "where there are concurrent causes of death, conduct whichhastens or contributes to a person's death is a cause of death." Cox v. State , 808 S.W.2d 306, 309 (Ark. 1991); accord Tackett v. State , 766 S.W.2d 410, 414-15 (Ark. 1989). Viewing the evidence in this record in the light most favorable to the state, we are satisfied the District Court correctly found the evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia

to support Russey's conviction. Given the evidence at trial, including testimony from medical personnel who treated Mrs. Russey for her wounds, the jury rationally could have found that the blast from Russey's shotgun led directly to her death, or at least hastened or contributed to her death, which occurred some thirteen days after she was shot. The order of the District Court denying Russey's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.-3-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO
18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350
AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO
SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES  -  OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


     IN  CONNECTION  WITH  THE  QUARTERLY  REPORT  OF  MOUNTAIN  OIL,  INC. (THE
"COMPANY")  ON  FORM  10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2003, JOSEPH OLLIVIER
HEREBY  CERTIFIES,  PURSUANT  TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES  -  OXLEY  ACT  OF 2002, THAT TO THE BEST OF HIS
KNOWLEDGE:

THE  QUARTERLY  REPORT  FULLY COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 13(A) OF
THE  SECURITIES  EXCHANGE  ACT  OF  1934;  AND

THE  INFORMATION  CONTAINED  IN  THE  QUARTERLY  REPORT  FAIRLY PRESENTS, IN ALL
MATERIAL  RESPECTS,  THE  FINANCIAL  CONDITION  AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE
COMPANY.


MAY  6,  2003                        By: /S/  JOSEPH  OLLIVIER,  PRESIDENT
-------------                            ---------------------------------
1

Kevin J. Funk, Esq.

DURRETTECRUMP

Bank of America Building, 

1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor,

Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: 804.343.4387

Fax: 804.775.6911

kfunk@durrettecrump.com

Roland Gary Jones (RGJ-6902)

JONES & ASSOCIATES

1745 Broadway, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10019

Tel: (347) 862-9254

Fax: (212) 202-4416

Email: rgj@rolandjones.com

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

(RICHMOND DIVISION) 

In re:

HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, INC, et al .,

Debtors,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Chapter 11

Case No. 15-32919 (KRH)

JOINTLY ADMINISTERED

RICHARD ARROWSMITH, AS LIQUIDATING

TRUSTEE OF THE HDL LIQUIDATING TRUST,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VERSAILLES FAMILY MEDICINE, PLLC,

And

BRIAN A. SMITH,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

) 

)

)

Adv. Pro. No. 17-03169

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF VERSAILLES FAMILY MEDICINE, PLLC AND 

BRIAN A. SMITH’S ANSWER (DOCKET #5) AND

AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (DOCKET #8)

Case 17-03169-KRH Doc 9 Filed 05/17/17 Entered 05/17/17 16:45:41 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
2

Notice is hereby given that the Answer to Complaint dated April 24, 2017 (A.P. Docket 

#5) filed by Defendants Versailles Family Medicine, PLLC and Brian A. Smith (the 

“Defendants”) and the Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses dated May 12, 2017 (A.P. 

Docket #8) are hereby withdrawn without prejudice.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Richard Arrowsmith, has consented to a 30-day extension for 

the Defendants to file an answer by and through undersigned counsel Kevin J. Funk.

Dated: May 17, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Kevin J. Funk_____________ 

Counsel

Kevin J. Funk (VSB No. 65465)

DURRETTECRUMP

Bank of America Building, 

1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor,

Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: 804.343.4387

Fax: 804.775.6911

kfunk@durrettecrump.com

and

Roland Gary Jones, Esq.

JONES & ASSOCIATES

1745 Broadway, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10019

Tel: (347) 862-9254

Fax: (212) 202-4416

Email: rgj@rolandjones.com

Case 17-03169-KRH Doc 9 Filed 05/17/17 Entered 05/17/17 16:45:41 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 17th 2017, a copy of the Defendants’ NOTICE OF 

WITHDRAWAL OF VERSAILLES FAMILY MEDICINE, PLLC AND BRIAN A. SMITH’S 

ANSWER (DOCKET #5) AND AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

(DOCKET #8), was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system and via email upon the following:

Cullen Drescher Speckhart 

Wolcott Rivers Gates

919 E. Main Street

Suite 1040

Richmond, VA 23219

(757) 497-6633

Email: cspeckhart@wolriv.com

/s/ Kevin J. Funk________ 

Case 17-03169-KRH Doc 9 Filed 05/17/17 Entered 05/17/17 16:45:41 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
### **CHAPTER 71—OBSCENITY**

Sec.
1460.
Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property.
1461.
Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter.
1462.
Importation or transportation of obscene matters.
1463.
Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes.
1464.
Broadcasting obscene language.
1465.
Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution. 1

1466.
Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter.
1466A.
Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.
1467.
Criminal forfeiture.
1468.
Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television.
1469.
Presumptions.
1470.
Transfer of obscene material to minors.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2003**—Pub. L. 108–21, title V, §504(b), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 682, added item 1466A.

**1998**—Pub. L. 105–314, title IV, §401(b), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2979, added item 1470.

**1988**—Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §§7521(b), (f)[(e)], 7523(b), 7526(b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4489, 4490, 4502, 4503, added items 1460 and 1466 to 1469.

**1955**—Act June 28, 1955, ch. 190, §4, 69 Stat. 184, added item 1465.

**1950**—Act May 27, 1950, ch. 214, §2, 64 Stat. 194, substituted "matters" for "literature" in item 1462.

1  Section catchline amended by Pub. L. 109–248 without corresponding amendment of chapter analysis.
#### § 710.101 Purpose.

The primary purpose of the requirements in this part is to ensure the prudent use of Federal funds under title 23, United States Code, in the acquisition, management, and disposal of real property. In addition to the requirements of this part, other real property related provisions apply and are found at 49 CFR part 24.
Summary: BOR Employee Diverted Water From Federal Canal to 

Private Ranch 

Report Date: July 29, 2020 Report Number: 19-0716 

The OIG investigated allegations that a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) employee illegally 

diverted water from a BOR canal to a private ranch. 

Our investigation confirmed the BOR employee approved the water diversion, but we did not 

find evidence the BOR employee received any personal benefit, financial or otherwise, as a 

result. The BOR employee said they approved the water diversion because they were trying to 

solve the ranch owner’s concern that construction in the area had blocked flood-water overflow 

from coming onto the ranch owner’s property. The BOR employee further said they were 

concerned that the ranch owner would terminate an agreement that allowed the BOR to operate a 

pump station—which the BOR uses to protect endangered species in the area by pumping water 

to dry areas—on the ranch owner’s property because the terms of the agreement allowed the 

ranch owner to terminate the agreement if the ranch owner believed the BOR impeded any of 

their projects. 

We further found the BOR employee circumvented engineering and environmental approval by 

funding the project through an existing operations and maintenance contract instead of a new 

contract, which would have triggered the BOR’s review and approval process. The BOR 

employee said they believed the project was within the scope of work of the existing contract and 

did not seek approval before authorizing the water diversion. 

This is a summary of an investigative report that we issued to the BOR Commissioner. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             292
<SECURITIES>                                         9
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                        794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,767
<PP&E>                                           2,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,023
<BONDS>                                            481
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           282
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,060
<SALES>                                          6,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,731
<CGS>                                            4,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    506
<INCOME-TAX>                                       172
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.58
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4725 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ‘‘Chaplain 

(Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 17, 2019 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. BUCK, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. 

CROW, Mr. NEGUSE, and Mr. PERLMUTTER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, 

Colorado, as the ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CHAPLAIN (CAPT.) DALE GOETZ MEMORIAL 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado 

7 Springs, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4725 IH

1 ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, 

4 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale 

7 Goetz Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### §460y–9. Authorization of appropriations

(a) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this subchapter, but not to exceed $1,500,000 for the purchase of lands and interests in lands and not to exceed $3,500,000 for the construction and improvements.

(b) In addition to any amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1979, for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands under this subchapter—

(1) from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (established under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965) 1 not to exceed $5,000,000, and

(2) from any other sources an amount not to exceed the sum of (A) $5,000,000, and (B) an amount equal to the amount deposited in the Treasury under section 460y–4(3)(B) of this title after August 20, 1978,

such sums to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 91–476, §10, Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1071; Pub. L. 95–352, §2(2), (3), Aug. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 516.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is Pub. L. 88–578, Sept. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 897, which was classified principally to part B (§460l–4 et seq.) of subchapter LXIX of this chapter. Sections 2, 3, 4(i)(1)(C), (j) to (n), 5 to 10, and 201 of the Act were repealed and restated as sections 100506(c) and 100904 and chapter 2003 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–352 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1 See References in Text note below.