alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 1,059

 1,061

 1,026

 1,026

 999

 949

 969

 1,040

 1,002

 1,024

 1,039

 1,061

 1,037

 992

 962

 958

 966

 923

 941

 913

 977

 986

 1,036

 1,042

 1,022

 1,011

 1,015

 989

 321

 316

 323

 334

 318

 309

 322

 310

 312

 319

 319

 321

 319

 325

 317

 314

 320

 330

 336

 341

 343

 344

 351

 352

 355

 362

 363

 362

 663

 612

 552

 612

 588

 554

 600

 615

 570

 564

 590

 689

 629

 606

 559

 550

 591

 550

 557

 555

 585

 611

 628

 612

 635

 605

 636

 650

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 11, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 426

 394

 357

 394

 379

 358

 387

 396

 368

 365

 381

 442

 405

 391

 361

 356

 381

 356

 360

 359

 378

 394

 404

 394

 408

 390

 409

 418

TOTAL 16,768

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LISA MELISSE, as personal representative of the Estate of GLORIA 

BONO, deceased, and MICHAEL BONO, SR., as personal representative 

of the Estate of MICHAEL BONO JR., deceased,

Appellants,

v.

Y.C.C.S. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida

corporation, JUDITH L. MATTHEWS and GULICK CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation for profit,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-950

[May 3, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Barbara W. Bronis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CA000739.

Jay M. Levy of Jay M. Levy, P.A., Miami, and John Leighton of Leighton 

Law, P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Scott A. Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, and David Bradley 

and Adam Zhamukhanov of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, 

for appellee, Y.C.C.S. Property Owners Association, Inc. 

Benjamin L. Bedard and Dana P. Clement of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard 

& Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Judith L. Matthews.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Catherine Goldring, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 15,096.

*Verdicts—when not disturbed as against the evidence.*If the jury are justified in crediting the witnesses of the prevailing party and their evidence tends to sustain a correct legal theory of recovery, the verdict rendered will not be disturbed in the absence'of errors of law having intervened.

Action in case for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. George A. Dupuy, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1908.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 2, 1910.

Benjamin F. Richolson and Ferdinand Goss, for appellant; John R. Harrington, of counsel.

Edward R. Litzinger, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Mack

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment for $500 for injuries which plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s car, claims she sustained by reason of defendant’s negligence in suddenly starting the car while she was in the act of alighting. The conflict in the evidence is as to whether the accident occurred before or after the car had come to a stop. Under proper instructions, the jury has determined this conflict in her favor. She is corroborated in her version by two witnesses while defendant’s version that she stepped from the car while it was in motion and before it had stopped is supported by three witnesses.

On a careful consideration of the entire evidence we cannot hold that the jury were not justified in crediting the plaintiff’s witnesses and in determining that she had sustained the burden of establishing her case by a preponderance of the evidence. '

There were no direct physical injuries produced by *88the fall but within a day thereafter plaintiff had a recurrence of exopthalmic goitre, which she had had in severe form a year before, but the effects of which had practically disappeared prior to the accident though she was not entirely normal. While defend- ■ ant’s expert witness testified that a fall could not produce such a recurrence, the jury were justified under the evidence in believing plaintiff’s physician that the shock resulting from the fall could, in view of plaintiff’s condition, be the cause of the recurrence -and in finding that it was the cause in this case.

The judgment will be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
### §1659. Attack to plunder vessel

Whoever, upon the high seas or other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, by surprise or open force, maliciously attacks or sets upon any vessel belonging to another, with an intent unlawfully to plunder the same, or to despoil any owner thereof of any moneys, goods, or merchandise laden on board thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 775; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §489 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §298, 35 Stat. 1147).

Mandatory punishment provisions were rephrased in the alternative.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000".
MATTHEW H. MEAD
GOVERNOR

Office of the Governor

July 18, 2012

Bureau of Land Management

Lost Creek ISR Project

Attention: Dennis J. Carpenter, Field Manager
P.O. Box 2407

Rawlins, WY 82301

STATE CAPITOL
CHEYENNE, WY 82002

Re: Lost Creek In Situ Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bureau of Land Management Lost Creek In
Situ Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Lost Creek proposes to construct,
commercially operate, and reclaim facilities for In Situ operations in northeast Sweetwater
County. The project is expected to generate 60 full time and 40 contract positions. The
Preliminary Economic Assessment calculates net earnings of $283 million over its life. The
potential for positive economic impact in the region and development of an important energy

resource are significant benefits.

I would ask that the Record of Decision in this matter conform with the permit to mine issued by
the Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division (DEQ-LQD) and the
application conditions and timing stipulation provided by Lost Creek. The DEQ-LQD permit
has been found to be in compliance with Greater Sage-grouse Core Area Protection (Executive

Order 2011-5).
If you need clarification or I can be of assistance please contact me.

Sincerely,

Matthew H. Mead

Governor
MHM:mdm

ce: Sweetwater County Commission

PHONE: (307) 777-7434

RECEIVED
JUL 2.0 2012

of Land Management
Bur awlins Field Office

FAX: (307) 632-3909
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — Rica Foods v Commission

(Case T -211/01) (1)

(2006/C 22/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 317, 10.11.2001.

----
### Geology and ore deposits of the Bokan Mountain uranium-thorium area, southeastern Alaska

By: E.M. MacKevett Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1154

#### 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) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Preliminary geologic map of part of the Bokan Mountain uranium-thorium area, Alaska(1957)                                    

- 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.
#### § 361.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation program authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV?

The program specific-requirements for the vocational rehabilitation services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are set forth in sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. All submission requirements for the vocational rehabilitation services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are in addition to the jointly developed strategic and operational content requirements prescribed by sec. 102(b) of WIOA.
### §3263. Delivery to authorities of foreign countries

(a) Any person designated and authorized under section 3262(a) may deliver a person described in section 3261(a) to the appropriate authorities of a foreign country in which such person is alleged to have violated section 3261(a) if—

(1) appropriate authorities of that country request the delivery of the person to such country for trial for such conduct as an offense under the laws of that country; and

(2) the delivery of such person to that country is authorized by a treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party.

(b) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall determine which officials of a foreign country constitute appropriate authorities for purposes of this section.

(Added Pub. L. 106–523, §2(a), Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2489.)
October 23, 2006

The Honorable Marion C. Blakey

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Suite 1010

Washington, DC 20591

Dear Administrator Blakey:

 We are writing in response to a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study 

No. 2004-AEA-3159-OE of September 18, 2006, regarding the proposed construction of a Marine 

Transfer Station by the New York City Department of Sanitation just outside LaGuardia Airport in 

Queens, New York.

 We would like to express our opinion that constructing a 110-foot tower approximately 1900 feet 

from the end of a busy runway in the midst of one of the most densely populated cities in the world is, 

at best, foolhardy. Common sense dictates that a different location nowhere near the airport would be 

more suitable for this project. We agree with the concerns raised by the Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey, and support its view that constructing the Marine Transfer Station at this location

needlessly endangers the flying public and citizens living in the surrounding area.

 On January 28, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined that the project was 

“presumed to be a hazard to air navigation.” However, on September 18, 2006, without any change to 

the proposal, the administration determined that the Marine Transfer Station posed “no hazard to air 

navigation.” We would like to inquire, and for the FAA to disclose, what considerations were made that 

prompted this change in the determination over the past year. In the meantime, we insist in the 

strongest possible terms that the FAA support the position of the Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey in the interest of aviation safety and the well-being of the American public.

 The FAA has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the flying public and the surrounding 

communities of LaGuardia Airport. We thank you for your attention to this matter and look forward to 

your prompt reply. 

Sincerely, 

GARY L. ACKERMAN CAROLYN B. MALONEY

Member of Congress Member of Congress

ANTHONY D. WEINER JOSEPH CROWLEY

Member of Congress Member of Congress 
GREGORY W. MEEKS

Member of Congress
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 96512 / December 15, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18897

In the Matter of

Paragon Coin, Inc.,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER DIRECTING 

DISBURSEMENT OF FAIR FUND

On October 3, 2022, the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority, 

published a Notice of Proposed Plan of Distribution and Opportunity for Comment (“Notice”),1

pursuant to Rule 1103 of the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans 

(“Commission’s Rules”);2and simultaneously posted the Proposed Plan of Distribution (the 

“Proposed Plan”). The Notice advised interested persons that they could obtain a copy of the 

Proposed Plan from the Commission’s public website or by submitting a written request to 

Keshia Ellis, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, 

DC 20549-5876. The Notice also advised that all persons desiring to comment on the Proposed 

Plan could submit their comments, in writing, within 30 days of the Notice. The Commission 

received no comments on the Proposed Plan during the comment period. On December 1, 2022, 

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 95965 (Oct. 3, 2022).

2

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1103.
2

the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority, issued an order approving the 

Proposed Plan,3and posted the approved Plan of Distribution (the “Plan”).

The Plan provides for the distribution of the Fair Fund, plus accumulated interest, less 

taxes, fees, and expenses, to the harmed investors according to the methodology set forth in the 

Plan. 

In accordance with the Plan, the Fund Administrator has compiled the payee information 

and prepared a payment file in a Commission-approved format. The Commission staff has 

reviewed and accepted the payment file and requests, pursuant to Rule 1101(b)(6) of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans,4that the Commission direct the 

payment of $167,665.15 from the Fair Fund for distribution by the Fund Administrator to 

harmed investors in accordance with the Plan.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Commission staff shall direct the payment 

of $167,665.15 from the Fair Fund for distribution by the Fund Administrator to harmed 

investors in accordance with the Plan.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.5

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

3

 See Order Approving Distribution Plan, Exchange Act Rel. No. 96428 (Dec. 1, 2022).

4

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(b)(6).

5

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(v).
### §1119. Foreign murder of United States nationals

(a) Definition.—In this section, "national of the United States" has the meaning stated in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

(b) Offense.—A person who, being a national of the United States, kills or attempts to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country shall be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.

(c) Limitations on Prosecution.—(1) No prosecution may be instituted against any person under this section except upon the written approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General, which function of approving prosecutions may not be delegated. No prosecution shall be approved if prosecution has been previously undertaken by a foreign country for the same conduct.

(2) No prosecution shall be approved under this section unless the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that the conduct took place in a country in which the person is no longer present, and the country lacks the ability to lawfully secure the person's return. A determination by the Attorney General under this paragraph is not subject to judicial review.

(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60009(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1972.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7500]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Central 
Repositories Non-Renewable Sample Access (X01)-Hepatitis C.
    Date: April 26, 2011.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Najma Begum, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 749, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b292e2c3e26250b25222f2f2065252223652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6d4d3d1c3dbd8f6d8dfd2d2dd98d8dfde98d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 24, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-7500 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §227. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—

(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or

(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b) In this section, the term "covered government person" means—

(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or

(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

(Added Pub. L. 110–81, title I, §102(a), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 739; amended Pub. L. 112–105, §18(a), Apr. 4, 2012, 126 Stat. 304.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–105 inserted "or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch" after "Congress" in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), substituted "a covered government person" for "a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or an employee of either House of Congress" in introductory provisions, and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 110–81, title I, §105(b), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 741, provided that: "The amendments made by section 102 [enacting this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 14, 2007]."

#### Construction

Pub. L. 110–81, title I, §102(b), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 739, provided that: "Nothing in section 227 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this section, shall be construed to create any inference with respect to whether the activity described in section 227 of title 18, United States Code, was a criminal or civil offense before the enactment of this Act [Sept. 14, 2007], including under section 201(b), 201(c), any of sections 203 through 209, or section 872, of title 18, United States Code."
§ 750.302 Policy. ( a ) Just compensation shall be paid for the rights and interests of the sign and site owner in those outdoor advertising signs, displays, or devices which are lawfully existing under State law, in conformance with the terms of 23 U.S.C. 131.
( b ) ( 1 ) Federal reimbursement will be made on the basis of 75 percent of the acquisition, removal and incidental costs legally incurred or obligated by the State.
( 2 ) Federal funds will participate in 100 percent of the costs of removal of those signs which were removed prior to January 4, 1975, by relocation, pursuant to the provisions of 23 CFR § 750.305(a)(2), and which are required to be removed as a result of the amendments made to 23 U.S.C. 131 by the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-643, section 109, January 4, 1975. Such signs must have been relocated to a legal site, must have been legally maintained since the relocation, and must not have been substantially changed, as defined by the State maintenance standards, issued pursuant to 23 CFR 750.707(b).
( c ) Title III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4651, *et seq.*) applies except where complete conformity would defeat the purposes set forth in 42 U.S.C. 4651, would impede the expeditious implementation of the sign removal program or would increase administrative costs out of proportion to the cost of the interests being acquired or extinguished.
( d ) Projects for the removal of outdoor advertising signs including hardship acquisitions should be programed and authorized in accordance with normal program procedures for right-of-way projects.
[39 FR 27436, July 29, 1974; 39 FR 30349, Aug. 22, 1974, as amended at 41 FR 31198, July 27, 1976]