alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 663.705 What are the requirements for OJT contracts for employed workers? OJT contracts may be written for eligible employed workers when: ( a ) The employee is not earning a self-sufficient wage as determined by Local Board policy;
( b ) The requirements in § 663.700 are met; and
( c ) The OJT relates to the introduction of new technologies, introduction to new production or service procedures, upgrading to new jobs that require additional skills, workplace literacy, or other appropriate purposes identified by the Local Board.
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

 997.94

 997.42

 996.86

 996.33

 995.73

 995.33

 994.98

 994.59

 994.21

 993.78

 993.36

 993.11

 992.85

 992.56

 992.27

 991.98

 991.67

 991.50

 991.20

 990.88

 990.67

 990.44

 990.28

 990.12

 989.77

 989.51

 989.38

 989.22

 989.01

 988.78

 2,783.9

 2,772.8

 2,760.8

 2,749.4

 2,736.7

 2,728.2

 2,720.7

 2,712.5

 2,704.5

 2,695.4

 2,686.6

 2,681.3

 2,675.9

 2,669.8

 2,663.7

 2,657.7

 2,651.2

 2,647.7

 2,641.5

 2,634.8

 2,630.5

 2,625.7

 2,622.4

 2,619.1

 2,611.9

 2,606.5

 2,603.9

 2,600.6

 2,596.3

 2,591.6

STORAGE

-10.6

-11.2

-12.0

-11.3

-12.8

-8.5

-7.4

-8.2

-8.0

-9.1

-8.8

-5.3

-5.4

-6.1

-6.1

-6.1

-6.4

-3.5

-6.2

-6.6

-4.3

-4.8

-3.3

-3.3

-7.2

-5.3

-2.7

-3.3

-4.3

-4.7

CHANGE

 2,601

 2,545

 2,250

 2,571

 957

 2,562

 3,114

 2,753

 2,883

 2,608

 2,643

 3,104

 3,246

 2,877

 2,783

 2,660

 2,840

 3,830

 2,756

 2,871

 3,456

 3,108

 3,370

 3,636

 1,880

 2,412

 3,598

 2,983

 2,674

 2,356

INFLOW

 7,748

 7,987

 8,023

 8,059

 7,197

 6,660

 6,675

 6,721

 6,757

 7,016

 6,890

 5,593

 5,808

 5,779

 5,723

 5,500

 5,905

 5,459

 5,729

 6,035

 5,462

 5,354

 4,886

 5,110

 5,364

 4,981

 4,825

 4,545

 4,628

 4,547

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

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 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

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 184

 189

 283

 220

 206

 187

 187

 187

 174

 161

 204

 160

 185

 154

 117

 215

 184

 153

 171

 183

 183

 152

 152

 194

 151

 127

 121

 97

 223

 181

C.F.S.

 .29

 .30

 .45

 .35

 .33

 .30

 .30

 .30

 .28

 .26

 .33

 .26

 .30

 .25

 .19

 .35

 .30

 .25

 .28

 .30

 .30

 .25

 .25

 .32

 .25

 .21

 .20

 .16

 .37

 .30

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2012 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 18, 2012

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS -202.8 83,927 180,966 0 0 5,285 8.58 .00

ACRE-FEET -202,800 166,469 358,946 0 0 10,483

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 358,946

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 358,946

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2012 .06

 2,794.5

Table 3
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Geology and ore deposits of the Iron River-Crystal Falls 
district, Iron County, Michigan

#### Professional Paper 570

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate- 1**                                 
    (11914 pdf)
- **Plate- 1**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 4**                                
    (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

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 here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp570 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: November 29, 
2012 12:37:27
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STACEY MACIEKOWICH,

Appellant,

v.

PAUL MACIEKOWICH,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-1003

[May 25, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2012-DR-11587.

David S. Fabrikant of Law Office of David S. Fabrikant, P.A., Stuart, for 

appellant.

Richard L. Dedell, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WARNER, J.

We reverse the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, agreeing with 

the former wife that the court erred in awarding her only $1 per year of 

alimony when it found that she had established a “compelling case” for her 

need for permanent alimony.

Although there is no transcript of proceedings, reversal is appropriate 

where the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Quinones v. 

Quinones, 182 So. 3d 702, 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). In its final judgment, 

the court found that while the former wife proved her need for permanent 

alimony in this nearly twenty-year marriage, no actual amount of her need 

was established. Both parties agree that the former wife stayed home with 

the children during the marriage, is currently unemployed, and has 

significant health issues.

“The two primary elements to be considered when determining 

permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and 

the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds.” Canakaris 

v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla. 1980) (emphasis added). The 

record shows that the former husband was paying all the household bills, 
2

pursuant to the parties’ agreement, which, in and of itself, would establish 

some amount of need. Further, although the court also found that the 

former wife had failed to establish an ability to pay on the part of the former 

husband, the court attached to the judgment the agreed child support 

guidelines worksheet showing the former husband’s level of income, while 

the former husband’s sworn financial affidavit also provided evidence of 

his ability to pay. Together these facts would establish some amount of 

need on the part of the former wife and ability to pay on the part of the 

former husband. Thus, the record does not support the finding that the 

former wife provided no such evidence. To refuse to award anything but 

$1 per year in permanent alimony in these circumstances was error.

We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the issue of 

permanent alimony. The court may wish to take additional evidence to 

fashion an equitable award in this case.

CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 703.119 [Reserved]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549
                            ----------------------

                                    FORM 6-K

                        REPORT of Foreign Private Issuer

                    Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                              Date: April 02, 2003

                         Commission file number 1-14748

                           OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY OF
                         LONG DISTANCE AND INTERNATIONAL
                          TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROSTELECOM
                          Doing Business as Rostelecom
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                             THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
                         (Jurisdiction of organization)

                         14 1ST TVERSKAYA-YAMSKAYA STR.
                              125047 MOSCOW, RUSSIA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

         Registrant's telephone number, international: +7 095 973 9940

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
               reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                   Form 20-F   X             Form 40-F   __

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
        information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the
        information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                      Yes   __                  No   X

        If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
        registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):  82-________







On April 02, 2003, Open Joint Stock Company of Long Distance and International
Telecommunications Rostelecom (the "Company") announced its 2002 full year
results in accordance with Russian Accounting Standards (RAS). A copy of the
press release announcing the results is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.







Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:    April 02, 2003              By:   [signed]    Vladimir I. Androsik
                                     Name:    Vladimir I. Androsik
                                     Title:   Deputy General Director -
                                              Finance Director




                           EXHIBIT INDEX

The following exhibit has been disclosed as part of this Form 6-K:


Exhibit Number     Description

     1.            English translation of the press release announced
                   Rostelecom's 2002 full year results in accordance with
                   Russian Accounting Standards (RAS).
§ 618.844 Inviolate rights to Trade Adjustment Assistance or Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance. ( a ) Except as specifically provided in this part, the rights of individuals to TAA Program benefits will be protected in the same manner and to the same extent as the rights of persons to UI are protected under the applicable State law. Such measures must include protection of applicants for TAA Program benefits from waiver, release, assignment, pledge, encumbrance, levy, execution, attachment, and garnishment of their rights to TAA Program benefits, except as provided in §§ 618.832 (overpayments; penalties for fraud) and 618.836 (recovery of debts due the United States or others by TAA offset).
( b ) In the same manner and to the same extent as the rights of persons to UI are protected under the applicable State law, individuals must be protected from discrimination and obstruction in regard to the right to seek, apply for, and receive any TAA Program benefit.
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 ELEV

 520.97

 520.57

 519.51

 518.24

 517.03

 516.84

 516.65

 515.54

 514.69

 513.89

 513.24

 512.25

 510.97

 509.90

 509.08

 508.19

 507.55

 506.49

 505.56

 504.57

 503.93

 503.28

 502.77

 502.09

 501.34

 500.56

 500.34

 500.07

 499.95

 499.68

 499.50

 1,754,713

 1,749,882

 1,737,100

 1,721,829

 1,707,322

 1,705,048

 1,702,775

 1,689,517

 1,679,389

 1,669,875

 1,662,159

 1,650,431

 1,635,309

 1,622,705

 1,613,068

 1,602,631

 1,595,140

 1,582,759

 1,571,925

 1,560,419

 1,552,996

 1,545,470

 1,539,573

 1,531,723

 1,523,080

 1,514,110

 1,511,583

 1,508,484

 1,507,107

 1,504,011

 1,501,948

STORAGE

+3,141

-4,831

-12,782

-15,271

-14,507

-2,274

-2,273

-13,258

-10,128

-9,514

-7,716

-11,728

-15,122

-12,604

-9,637

-10,437

-7,491

-12,381

-10,834

-11,506

-7,423

-7,526

-5,897

-7,850

-8,643

-8,970

-2,527

-3,099

-1,377

-3,096

-2,063

CHANGE

1,886

631

476

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

0

0

PUMPING

 0

 2,986

 7,014

 7,905

 7,414

 985

 1,238

 6,719

 5,227

 4,900

 3,920

 6,001

 7,737

 6,472

 5,088

 5,313

 3,860

 6,429

 5,516

 5,796

 3,843

 3,838

 3,026

 3,800

 4,513

 4,750

 1,264

 1,496

 627

 1,425

 940

POWER

 127

 144

 108

 113

 71

 3

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 79

SPILL

 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

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

-175

+63

+202

+319

+171

-159

+92

+35

+120

+103

+30

+88

+113

+117

+230

+51

+83

+187

+54

-5

+100

+44

+53

-158

+155

+228

-10

-66

-68

-136

-21

OR

 141

 156

 117

 136

 93

 104

 116

 116

 127

 96

 88

 107

 115

 65

 110

 68

 91

 68

 132

 75

 101

 52

 64

 56

 78

 71

 70

 82

 74

 74

 85

C.F.S.

 .36

 .40

 .30

 .35

 .24

 .27

 .30

 .30

 .33

 .25

 .23

 .28

 .30

 .17

 .29

 .18

 .24

 .18

 .35

 .20

 .27

 .14

 .17

 .15

 .21

 .19

 .19

 .22

 .20

 .20

 .23

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR December 15, 2017

DAILY OPERATIONS

OCTOBER 2017 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -249,624 2,993 130,042 645 0 +1,840 2,928 7.69 .00

ACRE-FEET -249,624 5,937 257,938 1,279 0 +3,650 5,808

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 257,938

PACHECO TUNNEL 1,279 TOTAL 259,217

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2017 TO DATE = .11

 1,751,572

SPILL 0 .00

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17

OCT 1, 2017 TO DATE = .00
### §2378. Prohibition on assistance to countries that provide military equipment to terrorist states

#### (a) Prohibition

#### (1) In general

The President shall withhold assistance under this chapter to the government of any country that provides lethal military equipment to a country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined is a terrorist government for the purposes of section 4605(j) 1 of title 50, or 2371 of this title.

#### (2) Applicability

The prohibition under this section with respect to a foreign government shall terminate 1 year after that government ceases to provide lethal military equipment. This section applies with respect to lethal military equipment provided under a contract entered into after April 24, 1996.

#### (b) Waiver

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, assistance may be furnished to a foreign government described in subsection (a) if the President determines that furnishing such assistance is important to the national interests of the United States and, not later than 15 days before obligating such assistance, furnishes a report to the appropriate committees of Congress including—

(1) a statement of the determination;

(2) a detailed explanation of the assistance to be provided;

(3) the estimated dollar amount of the assistance; and

(4) an explanation of how the assistance furthers United States national interests.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. III, §620H, as added Pub. L. 104–132, title III, §326, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1256.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 87–195, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 424, known as the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2151 of this title and Tables.

Section 4605(j) of title 50, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was repealed by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title XVII, §1766(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2232.

#### Codification

April 24, 1966, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), was in the original "the date of enactment of this Act", which was translated as meaning the date of enactment of Pub. L. 104–132, which enacted this section, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

#### "Assistance" Defined

Assistance defined for purposes of title III of Pub. L. 104–132, see section 329 of Pub. L. 104–132, set out as a note under section 2349aa–10 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation of functions of President under this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 F.R. 56673, as amended, set out as a note under section 2381 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
No. 11,647.

#### Abila *v.*The People.

Decided October *4,*1926.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

*Affirmed.*

*On Application for Supersedeas.*

1. Criminal *Law*— Homicide—Voluntary *Manslaughter*— Instructions., Evidence summarized in a' homicide case and held to support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter.

2. *Verdict*— Presumption. On review, all presumptions are in favor of the verdict.

*Error to the District Court of Bio Grande County, Hon. Jesse C. Wiley, Judge.*

Mr. James P. Veerkamp, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. William L. Boatright, Attorney General, Mr. Jean S. Breitenstein, Assistant, Mr. Louis W. Burford, Assistant, for the people.

*En banc.*

*170Me. Justice Bueke

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried for the murder of one Sanchez. On a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of three and one-half to five years. To review that judgment he sues out this writ and asks that it be made a supersedeas.

The only alleged error argued is that the evidence disclosed a first degree murder hence defendant must he found guilty of that or not guilty. We think otherwise. There was testimony from which the jury might have found that both men were drunk; that they had a fight in which Sanchez was the aggressor and in which he received his death wound, or that the combat ceased and was shortly thereafter renewed resulting in his death; that the participants had theretofore been good friends; and that there was no premeditation, plan or design, on the part of defendant to take his adversary’s life. Such facts support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Wharton on Homicide (3d Ed.), sec. 165; Secs. 6666, 6667, 6668, C. L. 1921; *Edwards v. People,*73 Colo. 377, 215 Pac. 855; *Henwood v. People,*54 Colo. 188, 193, 129 Pac. 1010.

As all presumptions are in favor of the verdict, this one cannot he disturbed.

While the other assignments are not argued we find nothing in the record tending to support them or justifying further consideration.

The supersedeas is accordingly denied and the judgment affirmed.

Me. Justice Campbell and Me. Justice Adams not participating.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40786 

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES WILLIE DUKE, III,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNKNOWN PERSON CHANDLER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:99-CV-280

- - - - - - - - - -

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Willie Duke, III, federal prisoner # 24193-077,

appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition that

invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also requests a certificate of

appelability (COA) for claims arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To

obtain a COA, Duke must make a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When

challenging a dismissal on procedural grounds, such as the

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction presented here, Duke must make 
No. 99-40786

-2-

a credible showing that the district court erred when it

dismissed his claim. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 386

(5th Cir. 1998). 

Duke argues the following: (1) the district court erred when

it dismissed issues arising under § 2255 that related to

sentencing; and (2) the indictment in his underlying criminal

trial was insufficient. Duke also filed a motion to supplement

the record and a motion for appointment of counsel. These

motions are DENIED.

To the extent that Duke has made a § 2241 claim relating to

credit for time served in state prison, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED because Duke has failed to argue the

issue on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Duke also has failed

to make a credible showing that the district court erred when it

dismissed his § 2255 claims relating to sentencing. See

Whitehead, 157 F.3d at 386. This court will not consider the

issue whether the indictment was sufficient because it was raised

for the first time in Duke’s request for COA. See id. at 388. 

Accordingly, Duke’s request for COA is DENIED.

The portion of the judgment relating to § 2241 is AFFIRMED. 

COA is DENIED on all other issues. All other motions are DENIED.