alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 7111

#### John Freeman, Jr., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Law Enforcement, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 20, 1973.*

John Freeman, Jr., Claimant, pro se.

*368William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
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

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 9,083

 9,210

 10,182

 10,332

 10,315

 9,356

 8,004

 8,257

 8,506

 8,315

 8,598

 9,422

 8,731

 9,133

 9,115

 8,865

 9,480

 9,811

 7,438

 6,387

 6,858

 7,076

 6,669

 6,663

 6,463

 7,346

 8,685

 8,908

 8,159

 9,888

 10,074

 1,319

 1,655

 1,687

 1,600

 2,574

 1,663

 1,563

 2,007

 2,186

 1,599

 1,408

 1,288

 1,062

 1,276

 1,205

 1,208

 1,391

 1,247

 927

 1,005

 1,083

 1,414

 971

 957

 863

 911

 864

 1,028

 1,195

 1,816

 1,630

 4,818

 5,210

 5,733

 5,959

 6,421

 5,718

 5,067

 5,169

 5,050

 4,687

 4,842

 5,076

 4,865

 5,061

 4,835

 5,203

 5,315

 5,338

 4,128

 3,720

 3,663

 3,508

 3,139

 2,695

 3,021

 3,655

 3,876

 4,171

 4,692

 5,406

 5,567

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 21, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 55,896

 56,634

 58,116

 60,038

 62,238

 64,359

 66,124

 68,106

 70,088

 71,334

 71,998

 72,754

 73,073

 73,676

 73,693

 73,686

 73,268

 72,647

 70,354

 68,356

 66,952

 65,291

 63,380

 61,388

 59,567

 58,146

 57,157

 56,267

 56,124

 56,327

 56,579

 3,993

 4,045

 4,151

 4,288

 4,446

 4,597

 4,723

 4,865

 5,006

 5,095

 5,143

 5,197

 5,220

 5,263

 5,264

 5,263

 5,233

 5,189

 5,025

 4,883

 4,782

 4,664

 4,527

 4,385

 4,255

 4,153

 4,083

 4,019

 4,009

 4,023

 4,041

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### § 681.59 Records and Federal access after a school is no longer a HEAL school.

In the event a school ceases to participate in the HEAL program, the school (or its successor, in the case of a school which undergoes a change in ownership) must retain all required HEAL records and provide the Secretary of Education, the Comptroller General of the United States, and any of their authorized representatives access to them.
### §§174 to 180. Repealed. June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §651(a)(1), 46 Stat. 762, eff. June 18, 1930

Sections, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title III, §316(a)–(g), 42 Stat. 943, 944, related to unfair acts tending to destroy or injure domestic industries, investigations by Tariff Commission, appeals, and forbidding entry of articles pending completion of investigations.

Provisions of Tariff Act of 1930 corresponding to section 174, see section 1337(a) of this title; section 175, see section 1337(b); section 176, see section 1337(c); section 177, see section 1337(d); section 178, see section 1337(e); section 179, see section 1337(f); section 180, see section 1337(g).
# Official Journal L 96/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.096.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 96 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 565 April 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.096.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 96

English edition

Legislation

Volume 565 April 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 293/2013 of 20 March 2013 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for emamectin benzoate, etofenprox, etoxazole, flutriafol, glyphosate, phosmet, pyraclostrobin, spinosad and spirotetramat in or on certain products (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 293/2013 of 20 March 2013 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for emamectin benzoate, etofenprox, etoxazole, flutriafol, glyphosate, phosmet, pyraclostrobin, spinosad and spirotetramat in or on certain products (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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

29

DAY HIGH

 201

 196

 229

 242

 231

 218

 205

 191

 186

 197

 211

 220

 237

 246

 252

 258

 261

 269

 273

 273

 275

 274

 271

 278

 267

 259

 250

 233

 200

 151

 169

 183

 196

 203

 190

 183

 175

 178

 187

 193

 208

 218

 228

 241

 248

 253

 258

 262

 263

 263

 263

 262

 261

 253

 240

 226

 174

 171

 168

 178

 194

 216

 214

 200

 192

 180

 181

 191

 204

 215

 226

 237

 246

 252

 257

 261

 266

 267

 268

 268

 267

 268

 259

 248

 239

 212

 180

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 4, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 3,593

 3,511

 3,417

 3,337

 3,266

 3,186

 3,100

 3,009

 2,923

 2,850

 2,785

 2,740

 2,750

 2,796

 2,874

 2,948

 3,011

 3,056

 3,108

 3,175

 3,251

 3,339

 3,425

 3,502

 3,557

 3,590

 3,603

 3,578

 3,512

 257

 251

 244

 238

 233

 228

 221

 215

 209

 204

 199

 196

 196

 200

 205

 211

 215

 218

 222

 227

 232

 239

 245

 250

 254

 256

 257

 256

 251

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §3238. Offenses not committed in any district

The trial of all offenses begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, shall be in the district in which the offender, or any one of two or more joint offenders, is arrested or is first brought; but if such offender or offenders are not so arrested or brought into any district, an indictment or information may be filed in the district of the last known residence of the offender or of any one of two or more joint offenders, or if no such residence is known the indictment or information may be filed in the District of Columbia.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 826; Pub. L. 88–27, May 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 48.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on section 102 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §41, 36 Stat. 1100).

Words "begun or" were inserted to clarify scope of this section and section 3237 of this title.

This section is similar to section 219 of title 22, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Foreign Relations and Intercourse, providing in part that unlawful issuance of passports may be prosecuted in the district where the offender may be arrested or in custody. Said provision is therefore omitted as covered by this section. The remaining provisions of said section 219 are incorporated in section 1541 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1963—Pub. L. 88–27 authorized the trial of offenses not committed in any district in the district in which the offender, or any one of two or more joint offenders, is arrested; an indictment or information to be filed in the district of the last known residence of the offender or of any one of two or more joint offenders where the offender or offenders are not arrested or brought into any district; and an indictment or information to be filed in the District of Columbia where there is no knowledge of the residence of the offender or of any one of two or more joint offenders.
### Division I—Trade Readjustment Allowances
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF FIRST INDIANA CORPORATION



First Indiana Corporation has the following wholly owned subsidiaries, which are organized
under the laws of the United States:



|                                                                                                                                                            |  |                                                         
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Name                                                                                                                                                        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation              
|First Indiana Bank, National Association  First Indiana Financial Services, L.L.C.  First Indiana Capital Trust I  First Indiana Capital Statutory Trust II |  | United States of America  Indiana  Delaware  Connecticut



First Indiana Bank has the following
direct and indirect subsidiaries:



|                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Name                                                                                                                                                                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation            
|                                                                                                                                                                                 | 
|First Indiana Investor Services, Inc.  One Mortgage Corporation  One Investment Company, L.L.C.  One Investment
Partners, L.L.C.  Pioneer Service Corporation  MB Realty Company |  | Indiana  Indiana  Delaware  Delaware  Indiana  Indiana
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

In re: Case No. 

Chapter 

Debtor(s). 

ORDER SCHEDULING REMOTE HEARING 

Notwithstanding Richmond General Order 22-,

1

 the hearing(s) scheduled in the abovecaptioned caseIRU at  (the “Hearing”) shall be 

conducted via Zoom for Government only. Persons seeking to appear or participate at 

the Hearing must register in advance via the following link: 

A listen-only conference line be available: 

Dated: 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 

Entered on Docket: 

1

 Except as otherwise provided herein, Richmond General Order 22- shall still control. A copy of Richmond 

General2UGHULVDYDLODEOHDW

KWWSVZZZYDHEXVFRXUWVJRYVLWHVYDHEILOHVB5LFKPRQG*HQHUDO2UGHUSGI. 

LeClairRyan PLLC 19-34574

7

10/27/2022 1:00 p.m.

https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsceGupzIpH8C68HoUcKtMnrzyWZoIIQI

will

Dial: 1-866-590-5055 Access Code: 4377075 Security Code: 102722

10/26/2022 /s/ Kevin R. Huennekens

10/26/2022

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 1631 Filed 10/26/22 Entered 10/26/22 12:30:48 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
### Additional Definitions
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-112365, Form S-8 No. 333-72444 and Form S-8 No. 333-42904)pertaining to the California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1998 Stock-Based Incentive Compensation Plan and 1990 Employee Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 24, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 28, 2003. 

 

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California 

May 13, 2004
Colorado Soil Evaluation Values (CSEV)

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/csev.htm [12/20/2011 1:00:18 PM] Colorado.gov

Colorado Revised Statutes DIVISION INFORMATION Division Home Environmental Index A to Z Forms and applications Guidance and policy Household hazardous waste Information about us Mapping applications- EcoSites Notifications and permits Regulations State Telephone Directory What's New? 

### Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Colorado Soil Evaluation Values (CSEV) New Version of Colorado Soil Evaluation Values (CSEV) Table. The Division has updated the December 2007 version of the Colorado Soil Evaluation Values (CSEV) table. The 2011 version of the CSEV table incorporates the 2009 EPA risk assessment guidance for the inhalation pathway presented in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part F 1

. The table values presented in the July 2011 CSEV document replace both the December 2007 version and the outdated Soil Remediation Objectives (SRO) guidance that was originally published in December 1997. Screening values presented in the CSEV Table are based on human health risk from the combined exposure of direct soil ingestion, dermal contact with soil, and inhalation of vapors or particulates associated with soil. Other pathways, such as indoor air or food chain effects, may need to be considered on a site-specific basis. Users should also be aware that some sites in sensitive ecological settings may need to be evaluated for potential ecological risk. Development and quality checking of the Colorado Soil Evaluation Values (CSEV) table values will be an ongoing process and readers are encouraged to report any errors that may be discovered to the Division. Please be sure to consult the footnotes to the table when using these table values. If you have questions about the derivation or application of these table values, please contact the Division by email sent to comments.hmwmd@state.co.us

. Please be sure to put "Avramenko" in the subject line. Colorado Soil Evaluation Values (CSEV) Table

1 U.S. EPA (2009). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment). OSWER 9285.7-82; January 2009. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. EPA, Washington D.C. Live Help | Advanced Search
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Steven B. Lapin, certify that: 

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1, of The Aristotle Corporation; 
 

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:
 
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and
 

disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
Date:  April 27, 2005
/s/ Steven B. Lapin 
Steven B. Lapin
President and Chief Operating Officer
****
No. 16,081.

#### Monks *v.*Searle.

(197 P. [2d] 158)

Decided August 23, 1948.

Mr. Walter H. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Sid Pleasant, Mr. Worth F. Shrimpton, for defendant in-error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court.

Monks contracted with Sloan for construction of an addition to a building- owned by the former for the total price of $5,000.- Searle furnished material to Sloan to be used in the construction of the addition, filed his lien *494in apt time and brought action in foreclosure thereof against Monks only, also in apt time, without joining the principal contractor as party defendant until by amendment after the period of limitations provided by the statute had expired. From judgment and decree of foreclosure, Monks seeks relief.

It is first urged that the contractor was a necessary party, that a personal judgment against him was a condition precedent to foreclosure-of the materialman’s lien, and that the statute of limitations had run before he was made a party. However, neither the contract nor any memorandum thereof was filed in the office of the county recorder as provided by section 15, chapter 101, ’35 C.S.A. As a result, the materials supplied are deemed to have been furnished at the personal instance of the owner, and the materialman is entitled to his lien for the value thereof directly against the owner. *Armour & Co. v. McPhee & McGinnity Co.,*85 Colo. 262, 275 Pac. 12. Thereby the principal contractor became a proper, but not a necessary, party to the foreclosure, and the action was sufficient without him. If defendant wished him made a party he could be joined under our third-party practice. The other specifications of points do not merit consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Hilliard does not participate.
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

29

30

DAY HIGH

 303

 358

 388

 415

 401

 388

 424

 440

 485

 513

 539

 552

 578

 602

 625

 626

 659

 582

 604

 601

 657

 620

 570

 576

 587

 600

 603

 584

 634

 626

 203

 255

 270

 242

 228

 234

 262

 261

 259

 271

 280

 277

 283

 279

 273

 266

 248

 253

 226

 344

 257

 228

 349

 280

 270

 216

 213

 207

 209

 210

 246

 291

 324

 338

 295

 316

 342

 349

 373

 405

 424

 418

 432

 451

 450

 426

 439

 401

 449

 471

 467

 383

 514

 474

 444

 398

 355

 359

 379

 415

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:December 11, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 168

 196

 216

 225

 198

 211

 227

 232

 247

 266

 278

 274

 283

 295

 294

 279

 287

 264

 293

 307

 305

 253

 334

 309

 290

 262

 235

 238

 250

 272

TOTAL 11,828

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
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

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 971

 1,838

 2,104

 3,043

 2,177

 2,597

 2,418

 2,390

 2,726

 2,609

 2,629

 2,781

 2,998

 3,574

 3,465

 4,160

 4,686

 3,764

 4,411

 4,387

 3,679

 3,563

 2,838

 2,608

 2,189

 1,154

 2,025

 4,060

 2,841

 3,823

 3,438

 201

 200

 214

 225

 224

 237

 319

 341

 356

 362

 358

 336

 293

 297

 304

 355

 383

 301

 395

 316

 333

 347

 311

 273

 262

 266

 265

 287

 376

 326

 330

 306

 406

 564

 697

 601

 766

 741

 770

 837

 886

 965

 968

 879

 865

 910

 1,040

 1,258

 856

 1,489

 1,384

 1,093

 1,102

 971

 762

 646

 513

 586

 995

 1,111

 896

 957

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 9, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 10,664

 10,444

 10,152

 9,464

 8,660

 8,592

 8,334

 8,258

 8,355

 8,468

 8,695

 9,213

 9,731

 10,251

 10,855

 11,489

 12,183

 12,342

 13,230

 13,848

 14,200

 14,532

 14,666

 14,542

 14,223

 13,768

 13,475

 13,605

 13,806

 13,662

 13,361

 762

 746

 725

 676

 619

 614

 595

 590

 597

 605

 621

 658

 695

 732

 775

 821

 870

 882

 945

 989

 1,014

 1,038

 1,048

 1,039

 1,016

 983

 963

 972

 986

 976

 954

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
(No. 7063

#### Mayfair Supply Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 22, 1973.*

Mayfair Supply Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
No. 15,953.

#### Miller *v.*Stoner et al.

(197 P. [2d] 159)

Decided August 23, 1948.

Mr. John M. Boyle, Mr. Charles F. Morris, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Thomas H. Gibson, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Upon a careful examination of the record, we find a dismissal of the writ would be justified; however, no valid reason appearing why the judgment should be reversed, we elect to affirm it without written opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Hilliard does not participate.