alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 2014-1203

### Maps Showing Bathymetry and Modern Sediment Thickness on the Inner Continental Shelf Offshore of Fire Island, New York, Pre-Hurricane Sandy

----

/     Title Page /        List of Figures /        Conversion Factors /        Abstract /        Introduction /        Geologic Setting   /       Methods   /       Data Catalog /       Acknowledgments  /        References Cited /        Index /         

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1203/ofr2014-1203-figure6.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Friday, November 07, 2014, 12:37:06 PM
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

 22,876

 20,962

 27,019

 28,021

 24,232

 24,649

 27,165

 24,950

 26,092

 23,990

 22,654

 22,020

 20,197

 19,124

 17,357

 16,886

 19,924

 24,435

 26,145

 20,540

 22,923

 22,890

 21,681

 23,069

 22,037

 21,658

 21,034

 24,221

 21,454

 24,081

 9,175

 7,043

 12,390

 9,383

 11,152

 11,369

 13,511

 10,134

 12,481

 11,995

 10,758

 7,105

 10,758

 7,419

 11,618

 9,769

 11,140

 10,256

 11,188

 9,972

 10,920

 9,100

 11,467

 11,533

 11,246

 12,647

 10,999

 13,859

 12,741

 12,881

 16,245

 15,944

 17,367

 15,610

 17,030

 17,564

 19,068

 16,699

 17,403

 16,694

 16,297

 14,243

 16,213

 14,867

 13,633

 13,004

 14,733

 16,978

 17,079

 14,598

 14,904

 16,077

 15,830

 15,907

 15,643

 15,970

 16,055

 18,303

 16,699

 17,825

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 10, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
**EXHIBIT 12.3**

 

#### **PACCARAND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXEDCHARGES**

 

**PURSUANTTO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS**

(Millions of Dollars)

 
|                                                      |   | **Nine  Months Ended  September 30** | ** **  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|-------------|
|                                                      |   | **2003**                                  |        | **2002** | ** ** |
|                                                      |   |                                      |        |   |   |
| FIXED  CHARGES                                            |   |                                      |        |   |   |
| Interest  expense - PACCAR and subsidiaries (1)           |   | **$**                                     | **103.2**   | ** ** | $ | 125.1 |   |
| Portion of  rentals deemed interest                       |   | **9.5**                                   | ** **  | 10.1 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                      | ** **  |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED  CHARGES                                      |   | **$**                                     | **112.7**   | ** ** | $ | 135.2 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                      | ** **  |   |   |
| EARNINGS                                                  |   |                                      | ** **  |   |   |
| Income  before income taxes - PACCAR and subsidiaries (2) |   | **$**                                     | **565.7**   | ** ** | $ | 388.5 |   |
| Fixed  charges                                            |   | **112.7**                                 | ** **  | 135.2 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                      | ** **  |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS  DEFINED                                      |   | **$**                                     | **678.4**   | ** ** | $ | 523.7 |   |
|                                                      |   |                                      | ** **  |   |   |
| RATIO OF  EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                       |   | **6.02**                                  | **x ** | 3.87 | x |

 

----

(1)          Exclusiveof interest, if any, paid to PACCAR.

 

(2)          Includesbefore-tax earnings of wholly-owned subsidiaries.

 

1

----
§ 1002.290 Does VETS have the authority to order compliance with USERRA? No. If VETS determines as a result of an investigation that the complaint is meritorious, VETS attempts to resolve the complaint by making reasonable efforts to ensure that any persons or entities named in the complaint comply with the Act. If VETS' efforts do not resolve the complaint, VETS notifies the person who submitted the complaint of: ( a ) The results of the investigation; and,
( b ) The person's right to proceed under the enforcement of rights provisions in 38 U.S.C. 4323 (against a State or private employer), or 38 U.S.C. 4324 (against a Federal executive agency or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF  GLOBAL PARTNERS LP  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Global Partners LP (the
"Partnership") and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas J. Hollister, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Global GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Dated: March 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas J. HollisterThomas J. Hollister
    Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
    of Global GP LLC, general partner
    of Global Partners LP
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7807

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KENNETH ERIC COE, JR., a/k/a Junior , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Br y an Harwell , Chief District Judge. ( 4:17

- cr - 00378

- RBH

- 1; 4:19

- cv - 02142

- RBH )

Submitted : April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kenneth Eric Coe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for A ppellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Eric Coe, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 (201 8 ) motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit ju stice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                          38,131
<SECURITIES>                                    37,862
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,568
<PP&E>                                         241,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (80,070)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 563,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,835
<BONDS>                                        151,815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,515
<OTHER-SE>                                     168,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   563,359
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,175
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,235
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,674)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,803
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,284
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.480
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.480
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 11, 2021 No. 04-20-00083-CV Perla Ines GUTIERREZ , Appellant
v. Ruben Oscar GUTIERREZ ,

Appellee From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018FLA000140-D4 Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellee’s brief was originally due December 9, 2020. Appellee’s first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to January 8, 2021. On January 8, 2021, appellee filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the brief until February 8, 2021, for a total extension of sixty days. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER

appellee to file his/her brief by February 8, 2021
.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000732814
<NAME> APPALACHIAN OIL AND GAS COMPANY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1996
<CASH>                                          43,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  282,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               326,220
<PP&E>                                         593,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                 370,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 549,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          259,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,358
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   549,433
<SALES>                                         45,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,994
<CGS>                                          168,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,925
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 2014-1203

### Maps Showing Bathymetry and Modern Sediment Thickness on the Inner Continental Shelf Offshore of Fire Island, New York, Pre-Hurricane Sandy

----

/        Title Page /        List of Figures /        Conversion Factors /        Abstract /        Introduction /       Geologic Setting  /         Methods  /       Data Catalog /       Acknowledgments /        References Cited /        Index /       

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1203/ofr2014-1203-figure1.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Friday, November 07, 2014, 12:34:04 PM
§ 30.726 How can an excluded provider be reinstated? ( a ) If a physician, hospital, or provider of medical services or supplies has been automatically excluded pursuant to § 30.716, the provider excluded will automatically be reinstated upon notice to OWCP that the conviction or exclusion which formed the basis of the automatic exclusion has been reversed or withdrawn. However, an automatic reinstatement shall not preclude OWCP from instituting exclusion proceedings based upon the underlying facts of the matter.
( b ) A physician, hospital, or provider of medical services or supplies excluded from participation as a result of an order issued pursuant to this subpart may apply for reinstatement one year after the entry of the order of exclusion, unless the order expressly provides for a shorter period. An application for reinstatement shall be addressed to the Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, and shall contain a concise statement of the basis for the application. The application should be accompanied by supporting documents and affidavits.
( c ) A request for reinstatement may be accompanied by a request for oral presentation. Oral presentations will be allowed only in unusual circumstances where it will materially aid the decision process.
( d ) The Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation shall order reinstatement only in instances where such reinstatement is clearly consistent with the goal of this subpart to protect the EEOICPA program against fraud and abuse. To satisfy this requirement the provider must provide reasonable assurances that the basis for the exclusion will not be repeated.
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3059, Feb. 8, 2019]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00071-CR

Victoria Isabella HALL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR10261

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 14, 2018

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Victoria Isabella Hall pled guilty to aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to five years in prison and a $1500.00 fine in 

accordance with the terms of her plea-bargain agreement. On January 19, 2018, the trial court 

signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Hall filed a notice of 

appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See 
04-18-00071-CR

- 2 -

id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has 

been filed. See id. 25.2(d). 

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the 

punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor 

and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed 

and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave Hall permission to appeal. 

See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a pleabargain case and that Hall does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” 

Id. 25.2(d). 

We, therefore, informed Hall that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that Hall had 

the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels 

v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court 

certification has been filed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
(No. 6729

#### Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 22, 1973.*

Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.

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

Per Curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

               <ARTICLE> 5
               <LEGEND>

          THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED  FROM
          FIRECOM, INC.'S  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE  SHEET, STATEMENT OF  INCOME AND
          STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW FOR  THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997,  AND IS
          QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

              </LEGEND>
              <MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
                     
          <S>         <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  APR-30-1997
          <PERIOD-END>                       JAN-31-1997
          <CASH>                             1,999
          <SECURITIES>  	                 0
          <RECEIVABLES>                      4,382
          <ALLOWANCES>                       439
          <INVENTORY>                        1,422
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                   8,307
          <PP&E>                             1,189
          <DEPRECIATION>                     662
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     8,946
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,656
          <BONDS>                            0
          <COMMON>    		             53
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
          <PREFERRED>                        1,437
          <OTHER-SE>                         4,399
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       8,946
          <SALES>                            11,396
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                   11,396
          <CGS>                              6,041
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                      6,041
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                   3,520
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                   84
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 27
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,724
          <INCOME-TAX>                       872
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                852
          <DISCONTINUED>                     0
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
          <CHANGES>                          0
          <NET-INCOME>                       852
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                      .13
          <EPS-DILUTED>                      .13
                       


</TABLE>
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 ELEV

 122.69

 123.43

 122.83

 122.58

 123.17

 123.56

 124.42

 123.98

 123.96

 123.62

 123.03

 123.22

 121.25

 123.34

 123.70

 123.17

 123.41

 123.60

 123.33

 123.56

 123.63

 122.70

 124.56

 124.25

 123.89

 122.50

 122.54

 123.54

 123.66

 121.83

 7,652

 7,993

 7,715

 7,602

 7,871

 8,054

 8,471

 8,252

 8,242

 8,082

 7,805

 7,894

 7,026

 7,951

 8,120

 7,871

 7,984

 8,073

 7,946

 8,054

 8,087

 7,656

 8,541

 8,386

 8,209

 7,566

 7,584

 8,045

 8,101

 7,270

STORAGE

-299

+341

-278

-113

+269

+183

+417

-219

-10

-160

-277

+89

-868

+925

+169

-249

+113

+89

-127

+108

+33

-431

+885

-155

-177

-643

+18

+461

+56

-831

CHANGE

1,674

2,009

1,697

1,777

1,971

1,935

2,199

1,927

2,041

1,962

1,894

2,074

1,617

2,520

2,309

2,151

2,327

2,311

2,210

2,332

2,307

2,074

2,911

2,846

3,004

2,759

4,075

5,254

5,165

4,674

INFLOW

 1,750

 1,756

 1,750

 1,747

 1,750

 1,757

 1,900

 1,949

 1,958

 1,953

 1,944

 1,942

 1,953

 1,945

 2,124

 2,196

 2,196

 2,192

 2,200

 2,200

 2,201

 2,196

 2,370

 2,829

 2,998

 2,988

 2,711

 2,572

 2,544

 2,505

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,259

 2,355

 2,498

 2,494

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 5

 3

 2

 2

 0

 1

 4

 3

 3

 5

 5

 2

 3

 4

 5

 5

 4

 4

 4

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 6

 5

 5

 4

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2022 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2022

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -681 76,006 65,076 8,606 1,800 119

ACRE-FEET -681 150,758 129,078 17,070 3,570 236

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 129,078

SPILL 17,070

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,488

 3,570

 7,951

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

 10

 18

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 39

 45

 35

 16

 10

 10

 10

 13

 24

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 750

 1,488

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET) 

TOTAL 151,206