alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office
 

Draft RMP/EIS
 

Map 15: Lewis & Clark County
 

NW Travel Plan Route
 

Designations Under Alternative B
 

BLM Routes 

Open Yearlong Bureau of Land Managment (BLM)
 

Closed Yearlong
 Bureau of Reclamation
 

Decommission
 County / City Government
 

Snowmobile Only
 Private 

BLM Routes with Restrictions
 State Lands

Closed 12/2 to 5/15
 

Other Federal Lands
 Other Routes 

US Forest Service (USFS) Public Access Route
 

Water
 Non-BLM Route 

County Boundary Interstate 

US Highway Field Office / TPA Boundary 

State Highway 

Map shows proposed road management within the Lewis and Clark County NW Travel Planning Area under Alternative B. 

Under this alternative 13.8 miles of road would be Open yearlong, 14.3 miles of road would be Open with a seasonal 

closure from December 2 to May 15, 41.6 miles of road would be Closed yearlong, and 10.9 miles would be Decommissioned. 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual 

or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may Malta 

Field Office not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through
 

digital means and information may be updated without notification.
 Missoula 

Field Office Miles Lewistown 

04 Field Office 

Map Scale 1:80,000 Miles City 

Field Office 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 Butte 

Field 

Office Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection Billings 

Field Office 

Dillon 

Field Office 

Miles 

0 400
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Hibernia  Corporation  of our report dated January 15, 1997,  included in the
1996 Anuual Report to shareholders of Hibernia Corporation.

We also consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in the  following  Hibernia
Corporation Registration Statements

          Form S-3 No. 33-26553 (dated February 21, 1989)
          Form S-8 No. 2-81353 (dated February 23, 1989)
          Form S-8 No. 33-26871 (dated February 23, 1989)
          Form S-3 No. 33-37701 (dated January 31, 1991)
          Form S-8 No. 2-96194 (dated April 8, 1991)
          Form S-3 No. 33-53108 (dated December 28, 1992)
          Form S-3 No. 33-55844 (dated December 28, 1992)
          Form S-8 No. 33-59743 (dated January 1, 1995)
          Form S-3 No. 333-8133 (dated September 19, 1996)
          Form S-8 No. 333-07761 (dated July 8, 1996)
          Form S-4 No. 333-14583 (dated November 12, 1996)

of our report dated January 15, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements  of Hibernia  Corporation  incorporated  by reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                                            s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
March 24, 1997
O

c

h

o

c

o

N

a

tio

n

al F

o

r

e

s

t

L

o

o

k

o

u

t

M

o

u

n

t

ain

R

a

n

g

e

r

Dis

t

ric

t

M

a

p

1

2

o

f

1

7

Alt

e

r

n

a

tiv

e

5

-

C

o

m

m

e

r

cial H

a

rv

e

s

t

See Sheet 6

S

P

E

A

R

S

D

R

A

F

T

EIS

26

108

120

740

751

704

559

879

163

859

199

189

851

532

811

184

888

303

858

700

863

125

112

107

703

111

776

821

742

172

701

300

565

114

127 311

317

304

104 101

705

177

118

188

748

193

186

198

707

166

752

809

210

110

524

302

174

989

509

570

846

139

891

179

845

824

200

834

155

201

306

105

841

515

988

848

810

847

530

831

138

176

563

531

986

808

738

517

191

400

185

892

569

1 6 5 4 3

8

9

7

9

4

7

5 4 3

9

8

8

5

7

7

8

6

9

7

2

9

8

8

9

1 3

7

6

5

2

6 4 3 2 6 5 4 1 3

1

1 2 4 1 6 5 3

2

11

28

36

25

11

30

16

27

33

11

27

18

33

11

29

25

23

32

13

22

12

14

17

24

15

26

20

31 35

34

28

28

30

29

32

26

10

34

21

29

34

32

34

26

19

17

33

10

25 29

33

15

29

31

33

17

35

35 31

10

34

22

15

28

19

33 36 32

28

15

27

22

32

16

21

16

21

12

30

13

32

20

16

31

10

30

18

10

30 27

20

12

31

27

28 27

15

25

18

23

14

26

34

17

24

18

18 17 16 14 16

14

36

36

15

12

35

13

10

17

29

13

31

18

30

36

19

25

12

24

36

25

12

13

13

2

11

11

22 23 24

26

35

21 21

35

23 20

14

22

23

19 24 19 19 20

14

21 22

26

24 20 23

19 20 21 22 23

Legend

Project Area

Township and Range

Sections

Non-Forest Service Lands

Travel Routes

Arterial

Collector

Local

State

County

Private

Closed

Decommissioned

Alternative 5

Commercial Harvest

Helicopter

Tractor

Road Proposals

New Road

Reconstruction 0 0.5 1 2 3

Miles

33

4/6/2007

T:\r06\och\lom\project\eis_spears_2006\gis\arcmap\map12 - Alt 5 commercial Harvest.mxd

27

42

22

Information displayed on this map was derived from multiple sources.

This map is only for graphic display and general planning purposes.

Inquiries concerning information displayed on our maps, their sources,

and intended uses should be directed to:

Ochoco National Forest

3160 NE Third Street

Prineville, Oregon 97754

(541) 416-6500

This map has no warranties to its contents or accuracy.

R 17 E

T

12

S

R 18 E R 19 E R 20 E

T

13

S

T

14

S
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification of Periodic
Report by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


As
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended
September 30, 2010 of Carbonics Capital Corporation (the “Company”) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Stephen J. Schoepfer, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to his knowledge:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.




A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.




By:
              /s/
      Stephen J. Schoepfer
              
              
              By:
              /s/
      Stephen J.SchoepferName:
              Stephen
      J. Schoepfer
              
              Name:
              Stephen
      J. SchoepferTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              
              Title:
              Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
              December
      23, 2010
§ 24.106 Standards for awards. ( a ) A prevailing applicant may receive an award for fees and expenses incurred in connection with a proceeding unless ( 1 ) the position of the Department as a party to the proceeding was substantially justified or
( 2 ) special circumstances make the award sought unjust. No presumption arises that the agency's position was not substantially justified simply because the agency did not prevail.
( b ) An award will be reduced or denied if the applicant has unduly or unreasonably protracted the proceedings.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 4.5-B

                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF
                              MONY CAPITAL TRUST II


         THIS Certificate of Trust of MONY Capital Trust II (the "Trust") is
being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as
trustee, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del.
C. Section 3801 et seq.) (the "Act").

         1. Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is MONY Capital
Trust II.

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware is Chase Manhattan Bank Delaware, 1201 North
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attn: Corporate Trustee
Administration Department.

         3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust will be effective upon
filing.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate
of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.


                                        CHASE MANHATTAN BANK DELAWARE,
                                        as Delaware Trustee


                                        By:      /s/ John J. Cashin
                                                 ---------------------
                                                 Name:  John J. Cashin
                                                 Title: Vice-President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Anthony THEIRSE, III, a/k/a Antmo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4900.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 30, 2002.

Decided May 15, 2002.

Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stacy Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Anthony Theirse, III pled guilty to conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting, and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting. He appeals his conviction and sentence. Theirse’s attorney has filed a brief citing *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), contending the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and improperly sentenced Theirse, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Theirse has filed a pro se supplemental brief contending his indictment was defective.

Because Theirse neither sought to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court nor raised any issues concerning his sentence, we review for plain error. *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); *United States v. Martinez,*277 F.3d 517, 529 (4th Cir.2002). Our review of Theirse’s plea hearing convinces us that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 and did not commit plain error. We also find the district court properly imposed a sentence of 114 months’ imprisonment.

We have reviewed the claim raised in Theirse’s pro se supplemental brief regarding his indictment and find it merit-less. In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Theirse’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel *143inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 32.1     DAC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) ORRULE 15d-14(c) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DAC Technologies Group InternationalInc (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), David A. Collins, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.              /s/ David A. Collins   David A. Collins, Chairman, CEOandPrincipal Executive Officer      Date: May 22, 2006
B3 323937.1 37652 00369
3/10/98 12:37 PM
                                                           Exhibit4(e)(i)
                                       
                                       
                                   AMENDMENT



          AMENDMENT, dated as of January 30, 1998, to the Rights Agreement,
dated as of January 11, 1990 (the "Rights Agreement"), between Idaho Power
Company (the "Company") and First Chicago Trust Company of New York, as Rights
Agent (The Bank of New York, successor Rights Agent) (the "Rights Agent").

          WHEREAS, the parties hereto are parties to the Rights Agreement; and

          WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26 of the Rights Agreement, the Company
and the Rights Agent deem it desirable to amend the Rights Agreement as set
forth below.

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
promises set forth herein and in the Rights Agreement, the parties hereto
agree as follows:

          1.   The definition of "Acquiring Person" as set forth in Section
1(a) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following
provision at the end thereof:

          ; provided, however, that Idaho Power Holding Company
          ("IPHC") shall not be deemed an "Acquiring Person" as a
          result of the execution, delivery and performance of the
          Agreement and Plan of Exchange (the "Exchange Agreement")
          to be dated as of February 2, 1998, between the Company
          and IPHC or the consummation of the transactions
          contemplated in the Exchange Agreement.

          2.   Section 13 of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by adding
the following provision at the end of the first sentence thereof:

          ; provided, however, that the execution, delivery and
          performance of the Exchange Agreement and the consummation
          of the transactions contemplated therein shall not
          constitute a transaction of the kind referred to in this
          Section 13.

          3.   This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Idaho applicable to contracts to be made and
performed entirely within such State.

          4.   Except as expressly amended hereby, the Rights Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.

          5.   This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts
and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an
original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the
same instrument.






          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Idaho Power Company and the Rights Agent have
executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


                              IDAHO POWER COMPANY


                              By: /s/ Joseph W. Marshall


ATTEST:



/s/  Robert W. Stahman


                              THE BANK OF NEW YORK, RIGHTS AGENT



                              By: /s/  John Sivertsen


ATTEST:



/s/  James Dimino
# Reports and Publications

- FY23 Annual No FEAR Act Report to Congress 
- 2022 OMWI Diversity Assessment Report 
- SEC OMWI FY 2023 Annual Report to Congress (PDF) 
- Fiscal Year 2025 Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Plan; Fiscal Year 2023 Annual Performance Report 
- 2023 Annual Staff Report Relating to the Use of Form PF Data (PDF) 
- Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 2023 (PDF) 
- Staff Report on Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (February 2024) (PDF) 
- SEC FY 2023 Conference Spending 
- Semi-Annual Report to Congress Regarding Public and Internal Use of Machine-Readable Data for Corporate Disclosures (December 2023) (PDF) 
- FY22 SEC Affirmative Action Plan for Persons with Disabilities (PDF) 
- FY22 EEO Annual Program Status Report (PDF) 
- 2023 Report on the Review of the Definition of “Accredited Investor” (PDF) 
- 2023 OASB Annual Report (XLSX) 
- 2023 Report and Certification of Internal Supervisory Controls (PDF) 
- Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 2022 (PDF) 
- 2023 OIAD Annual Report SEC OAID Report on Activities: Fiscal Year 2023
- Report on Security-Based Swaps (Issued on November 17, 2023) 
- 2023 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program (PDF) 
- Semiannual Management Report (November 2023) (PDF) 
- 2023 Agency Financial Report (PDF) 
- Report on Administrative Proceedings for the Period April 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023 Report on Administrative Proceedings for the Period April 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023
- 2024 Examination Priorities (PDF) 
- Investor Testing Report on Registered Index-Linked Annuities (PDF) 
- 2023 OASB Annual Forum Report (PDF) 
- FY 2020 Service Contract Inventory Planned Analysis for FY 2021 (PDF)
Bozema

rass 

g:\blm\buttermp\ams\FinalFigures\Fig2-17_West_Yell_CTT_Habitat_8511 

SHEILDS BASI

10070003 

N 

Sweet G

Park County 

n 

P 

Livingston 

! 

Map

Location
 

90 

§ ̈¦

Butte Field Office Bureau Of Land Management I Planning Area Boundary (BLM) Lands 

HUC Boundary Bureau Of Reclamation

Rivers and Streams (BOR) Lands Sensitive Salmonid Species Habitat Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Habitat Private Lands 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat Shields Basin

0 6 State of Montana Lands Miles Bull Trout Habitat Butte Field Office - EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of USDA Forest Service Lands RMP Planning Area, Montana Land Management (BLM) for use of USDI Fish and Wildlife FIGURE 2-21g data for purposes not intended by BLM. Service Lands
(No. 77-CC-2449

#### James Jones and Daniel Harry, Claimants, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed June 8, 1978.*

Holderman, J.

This matter comes before the Court on a motion of Respondent to dismiss and Claimants’ objections to said motion.

The complaint in this matter complains of alleged negligent actions on the part of Mauro Nicoletti, individually and as agent, servant and employee of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. Respondent’s motion cites Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 121, para. 100-31, as amended by P.A. 79-1366, Section 45, eff. October 1, 1976, which provided in part:

> “The State of Illinos hereby consents to suits against the Authority solely as in this section provided:

> (a) ,..

> (b) Any person or persons may bring a civil action to recover damages for injury to his person or property caused by any act of the Authority or by any act of any of its officers, agents, or employees done under its direction.”

The motion to dismiss also takes the position that the State of Illinois, through the legislature, having provided a remedy for the type of injuries complained of in the instant claim by way of a civil action against the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, the legal inference must be indulged in that the Claimants *271herein must pursue this remedy through a civil action brought in a competent Circuit Court as distinguished from the filing of a claim in the Court of Claims of Illinois.

Claimants, in their objection to Respondent’s motion, deny that Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 121, para. 100-31, has exclusive jurisdiction in the Circuit Courts of Illinois in actions where damages are sought from the Illinois State Tollway Authority or any of its officers, agents or employees, and state that said section does not expressly state that the Circuit Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in such actions.

If the theory of Claimants is correct, then the legislature has provided an additional remedy to people who are injured by acts of employees of the Illinois State Tollway Authority as against all other Claimants who have been injured by acts of other employees of the State of Illinois. This would result in giving a favored position as far as recovery from the State to those injured by acts of employees of the Illinois State Tollway Authority by giving them a double remedy, one against the State in the Court of Claims and another in the Circuit Courts of the State of Illinois.

It appears to the Court that it was the State’s intention to give individuals injured on the Illinois State Toll way Authority a choice of remedies — not an additional remedy.

The Court therefore holds that Respondent’s motion to dismiss is proper.

Motion to dismiss is hereby granted and said cause is dismissed.
#### § 300.615 Records on more than one child.

If any education record includes information on more than one child, the parents of those children have the right to inspect and review only the information relating to their child or to be informed of that specific information.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(8); 1417(c))
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4713** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOE D. MILLS, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern D istrict of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00012

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : February 7, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opini on . Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joe D. Mills, Jr. appeals the district court’s judgment imposing a thirty

- six month sentence upon revocation of his probation. Mills does not dispute that he violated the terms of his probation, but instead challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. We review sentences imposed upon revocation of probation to determine whether they are plainly unreasonab le. United States v. Moulden , 478 F.3d 652, 655 (4th Cir. 2007). The first step in this review analyzes whether the sentence imposed is unreasonable at all, taking “a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discre tion than reasonableness review for guidelines sentences.” Id. at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although a sentencing court must consider the non

- binding policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines as well as the applicable 18
U.S.C. § 355 3(a) (2006) factors, it “retains broad discretion to revoke a defendant’s probation and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.” Id. at 656

- 57. A sentencing court must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, but this s tatement need not be as specific as one addressing a departure from a “traditional” Guidelines range. Id. at 657. If the revocation sentence is unreasonable, we must then determine whether it is plainly so. Id.3 We find that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the thirty

- six month revocation sentence. In rejecting Mills’ request for a shorter sentence followed by a term of supervised release conditioned on in

patient substance abuse treatment, the district court recounted Mil ls’ pattern of supervision violations and relapse into substance abuse following treatment. Thus, the district court deemed Mills no longer suitable for community supervision. We find the district court’s explanation sufficient in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s judgment
. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED