alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 24.3 General jurisdictional principles. ( a ) In general the States possess broad trustee and police powers over fish and wildlife within their borders, including fish and wildlife found on Federal lands within a State. Under the Property Clause of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” In the exercise of power under the Property Clause, Congress may choose to preempt State management of fish and wildlife on Federal lands and, in circumstances where the exercise of power under the Commerce Clause is available, Congress may choose to establish restrictions on the taking of fish and wildlife whether or not the activity occurs on Federal lands, as well as to establish restrictions on possessing, transporting, importing, or exporting fish and wildlife. Finally, a third source of Federal constitutional authority for the management of fish and wildlife is the treaty making power. This authority was first recognized in the negotiation of a migratory bird treaty with Great Britain on behalf of Canada in 1916.
( b ) The exercise of Congressional power through the enactment of Federal fish and wildlife conservation statutes has generally been associated with the establishment of regulations more restrictive than those of State law. The power of Congress respecting the taking of fish and wildlife has been exercised as a restrictive regulatory power, except in those situations where the taking of these resources is necessary to protect Federal property. With these exceptions, and despite the existence of constitutional power respecting fish and wildlife on Federally owned lands, Congress has, in fact, reaffirmed the basic responsibility and authority of the States to manage fish and resident wildlife on Federal lands.
( c ) Congress has charged the Secretary of the Interior with responsibilities for the management of certain fish and wildlife resources, e.g., endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, certain marine mammals, and certain aspects of the management of some anadromous fish. However, even in these specific instances, with the limited exception of marine mammals, State jurisdiction remains concurrent with Federal authority.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICERREQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Russ Berrie and Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce G. Crain,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|   | August 18, 2008                     |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                     |
|   | /s/ Bruce G. Crain                       |
|   |                                     |
|   | Bruce G. Crain                           |
|   | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Russ Berrieand Company, Inc. and will be retained by Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
### Part B—1998 Distribution Authority
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Marbleton

Big Piney

Merna Cora

Daniel

Pinedale

Boulder

LaBarge

T35N

T34N

T33N

T32N

T31N

T30N

T29N

T28N

T27N

T26N

T25N

R114W R113W R112W R111W R110W R109W R108W R107W R106W

T36N

UV352

UV354

UV353

UV350

UV351

£¤191

£¤189

UV235

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

APPROVED PINEDALE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

o

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30

Miles

OHV Designations

Map 2-35

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Limited to Existing Roads and Trails

Limited to ATVs, Horse, and Foot Traffic

Limited to Designated Roads and Trails

Closed

Seasonal Limitations

Red

Dugway

Road
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Broadcast International, Inc. & Subsidiaries**

**Certification Of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To**

**Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Broadcast International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, James E. Solomon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)

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

Date: August 13, 2010

/s/ James E. Solomon

James E. Solomon

Chief Financial Officer

1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsArchitectural Optimization of Digital LibrariesThis work investigates performance and scaling issues relevant to large scale distributed digital libraries. Presently, performance and scaling studies focus on specific implementations of production or prototype digital libraries. Although useful information is gained to aid these designers and other researchers with insights to performance and scaling issues, the broader issues relevant to very large scale distributed libraries are not addressed. Specifically, no current studies look at the extreme or worst case possibilities in digital library implementations. A survey of digital library research issues is presented. Scaling and performance issues are mentioned frequently in the digital library literature but are generally not the focus of much of the current research. In this thesis a model for a Generic Distributed Digital Library (GDDL) and nine cases of typical user activities are defined. This model is used to facilitate some basic analysis of scaling issues. Specifically, the calculation of Internet traffic generated for different configurations of the study parameters and an estimate of the future bandwidth needed for a large scale distributed digital library implementation. This analysis demonstrates the potential impact a future distributed digital library implementation would have on the Internet traffic load and raises questions concerning the architecture decisions being made for future distributed digital library designs.Document ID19990007831Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBiser,  Aileen O.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1998Subject CategorySystems AnalysisReport/Patent NumberL-17790NAS 1.15:208956NASA/TM-1998-208956Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990007831.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
(No. 1123

Claimant awarded $550.00.)

#### Fred L. Huchberger, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 10, 1927.*

Fees & *salaries*— when *award will be made.*This case is controlled by the decision *of*the court in *Blasi*v. *State, supra.*

Harry Smitz, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

Fred L. Huchberger presents a claim against the State on account of a deficiency in salary, allotted to the chief inspector in the Division of Private Employment Agencies, in the Department of Labor, for deputy hire, said claimant being a deputy in said service. It appears that the general assembly in making the appropriation for the salaries in question, did not take into consideration that the law enacted contains a provision as follows: “If the deputy inspector has served or hereafter serves more than one year, $100 shall be added to his salary for each year of service until a maximum salary of $3,000 is reached,” and that no allowance for such increase in salary is made in the law.

. The Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

George B. Arnold, Director of Labor of the State of Illinois, has recommended that this deficiency be awarded to the employee.

We accordingly award to the claimant the sum of $550.00.
OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015

Federal Operating Permit Program (40 CFR Part 71)

FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET (FEE)

Fees will be submitted after consultation with EPA Region 4.

A. General Information

Type of fee (Check one): _X__Initial ___Annual

Deadline for submitting fee calculation worksheet __NA__/____/_______ 

For initial fees, emissions are based on (Check one):

___ Actual emissions for the preceding calendar year. (Required in most circumstances.)

___ Estimates of actual emissions for the current calendar year. (Required when

operations commenced during the preceding calendar year.)

Date commenced operations ____/____/______

___ Estimates of actual emissions for the preceding calendar year. (Optional after a part 

71 permit was issued to replace a part 70 permit, but only if initial fee payment is

due between January 1 and March 31; otherwise use actual emissions for the 

preceding calendar year.)

For annual fee payment, you are required to use actual emissions for the preceding calendar year.
### §1300i–5. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 100–580, §6, Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2929, which related to election of settlement option, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
EXHIBIT 12 – COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
*(In thousands, except ratio data)*                               **Three Months Ended** ** **  **March 31,** **Year Ended**  **2004** **2003** **2003** **2002** **2001** **2000** **1999**Income (loss) before incometaxes, equity in earnings ofnon-consolidated affiliates andextraordinary item $189,056  $117,070  $1,903,338  $1,191,261  $(1,259,390) $688,384  $220,213 Dividends and other receivedfrom nonconsolidated affiliates  1,150   1,511   2,096   6,295   7,426   4,934   7,079                                                          Total  190,206   118,581   1,905,434   1,197,556   (1,251,964)  693,318   227,292 Fixed Charges                            Interest expense  89,805   100,952   388,000   432,786   560,077   413,425   192,321 Amortization of loan fees  *   *   *   12,077   14,648   12,401   1,970 Interest portion of rentals  91,141   82,542   338,965   293,831   270,653   150,317   24,511                              Total fixed charges  180,946   183,494   726,965   738,694   845,378   576,143   218,802 Preferred stock dividends                            Tax effect of preferred dividends  —   —   —   —   —   —   — After tax preferred dividends  —   —   —   —   —   —   —                              Total fixed charges andpreferred dividends  180,946   183,494   726,965   738,694   845,378   576,143   218,802 Total earnings available forpayment of fixed charges $371,152  $302,075  $2,632,399  $1,936,250  $(406,586) $1,269,461  $446,094                              Ratio of earnings to fixedcharges  2.05   1.65   3.62   2.62   **  2.20   2.04                              Rental fees and charges  260,403   235,835   968,470   839,516   773,293   429,476   306,393 Interest component  35%  35%  35%  35%  35%  35%  8%
* Amortization of loan fees is included in Interest expensebeginning January 1, 2003.** For the year ended December 31, 2001, fixed charges exceeded earnings before income taxes and fixed charges by $1.3 billion.
#### Shawn G. BAUTISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward S. ALAMEIDA, Jr., Director of CDC; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-15800.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

*792Shawn G. Bautista, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Shawn G. Bautista appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his due process rights during parole revocation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir.2003), and we vacate and remand.

Bautista’s complaint and opening brief to this court appear to state he was released from incarceration upon the expiration of his parole. The district court should reconsider whether *Heck*bars Bautista’s action in light of this information. *See Nonnette v. Small,*316 F.3d 872, 877-78 *&*n. 7 (9th Cir.2002) (holding a former prisoner challenging loss of good-time credits or parole revocation could proceed with a section 1983 action because habeas relief was no longer available). Moreover, it is not clear from the complaint that all parole board defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. *See Swift v. California,*384 F.3d 1184, 1191 (9th Cir.2004).

It also appears that Bautista’s complaint may state a claim that he was improperly detained past the maximum termination date of his sentence. *See Haygood v. Younger,*769 F.2d 1350, 1354-58 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc).

*793In light of the facts presented in the complaint at this early stage of litigation, we remand to the district court for further proceedings. *See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (noting the general rule that leave to amend should be granted if there appears to be any possibility plaintiff can correct pleading defects is “particularly important to the pro se litigant”).

VACATED and REMANDED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §302. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–317, §2(11), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4420

Section, act June 21, 1906, ch. 3504, 34 Stat. 328, related to designation of Indian Reform Schools, appropriations, and parental consent.
Exhibit 23.3

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-87100 on Form S-3 of Newmont Mining Corporation
(Newmont) of our audit report dated August 21, 2001 on the financial statements
of Normandy Mining Limited as of June 30, 2001 and 2000 and for the years then
ended, appearing in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Newmont on March 1,
2002 and Amendment No. 1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Newmont on
April 16, 2002.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Prospectus.



/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
---------------------------------
DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU

Adelaide, Australia
August 1, 2002

The liability of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, is limited by, and to the extent of,
the Accountants' Scheme under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW).
### §1214. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–454, title II, §204, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4793, which related to construction of former sections 1212 to 1215 of this title, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §3007. Appropriations for Commission

#### (a) Authorization; disbursements

(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and functions. Appropriations to the Commission are authorized to remain available until expended.

(2) Appropriations to the Commission shall be disbursed on vouchers approved—

(A) jointly by the Chairman and the Cochairman, or

(B) by a majority of the members of the personnel and administration committee established pursuant to section 3008(a) of this title.

#### (b) Use of foreign currencies

For purposes of section 1754(b) of this title, the Commission shall be deemed to be a standing committee of the Congress and shall be entitled to use funds in accordance with such sections.

#### (c) Official reception and representational expenses

Not to exceed $6,000 of the funds appropriated to the Commission for each fiscal year may be used for official reception and representational expenses.

#### (d) Foreign travel for official purposes

Foreign travel for official purposes by Commission members and staff may be authorized by either the Chairman or the Cochairman.

(Pub. L. 94–304, §7, June 3, 1976, 90 Stat. 662; Pub. L. 94–534, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2495; Pub. L. 95–426, title VII, §702, Oct. 7, 1978, 92 Stat. 992; Pub. L. 96–60, title IV, §401, Aug. 15, 1979, 93 Stat. 403; Pub. L. 99–7, §§3, 4, Mar. 27, 1985, 99 Stat. 19.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1985—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–7, §3, amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: "There is authorized to be appropriated to the Commission for each fiscal year and to remain available until expended $550,000 to assist in meeting the expenses of the Commission for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this chapter, such appropriation to be disbursed on voucher to be approved by the Chairman of the Commission."

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99–7, §4, added subsec. (d).

1979—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 96–60 added subsec. (c).

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–426 substituted "$550,000" for "$350,000".

1976—Pub. L. 94–534 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–7 effective Apr. 15, 1985, see section 6(a) of Pub. L. 99–7, set out as a note under section 3002 of this title.
EXHIBIT 11  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE





(In thousands of dollars, except per share data)





Three Months Ended March 31,2002


2001Numerator:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of a change in accounting Principle

$
90,329


$
(309,228
)Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle


(16,778,526
)


Net loss


(16,688,197
)


(309,228
)Effect of dilutive securities:Convertible debt  2.625% issued in 1998


2,339
*


2,453
*Convertible debt  1.5% issued in 1999


2,325
*


2,438
*LYONS  1996 issue






(127
)*LYONS  1998 issue


1,184
*


1,754
*Less: Anti-dilutive items


(5,848
)


(6,518
)Numerator for net income (loss) per common sharediluted

$
(16,688,197
)

$
(309,228
)Denominator:Weighted average common shares


599,195



586,990Effect of dilutive securities:Stock options and common stock warrants


4,963



14,990
* **Convertible debt  2.625% issued in 1998


9,282
*


9,282
*Convertible debt  1.5% issued in 1999


9,454
*


9,454
*LYONS  1996 issue






3,869
* **LYONS  1998 issue


3,085
*


3,085
*Less: Anti-dilutive items


(21,821
)


(40,680
)Denominator for net income (loss) per common sharediluted


604,158



586,990Net income (loss) per common share:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principleBasic

$
.15


$
(.53
)Diluted

$
.15


$
(.53
)Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle  Basic & Diluted

$
(28.00
)

$
Net lossBasic

$
(27.85
)

$
(.53
)Diluted

$
(27.85
)

$
(.53
)





|* |  | Denotes items that are anti-dilutive to the calculation of earnings per share.
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|** |  | Denotes items that are anti-dilutive to the calculation of the March 31, 2001 restatement of earnings per share required upon the adoption of FAS 142.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

 838.27

 838.42

 838.57

 838.77

 839.24

 839.56

 839.82

 840.05

 840.21

 840.37

 840.43

 840.48

 840.46

 840.47

 840.50

 840.49

 840.44

 840.38

 840.32

 840.25

 840.18

 840.09

 840.00

 839.90

 839.76

 839.65

 839.54

 839.38

 839.27

 839.05

 46.91

 47.10

 47.28

 47.54

 48.13

 48.54

 48.87

 49.16

 49.37

 49.57

 49.65

 49.71

 49.69

 49.70

 49.74

 49.73

 49.66

 49.58

 49.51

 49.42

 49.33

 49.21

 49.09

 48.97

 48.79

 48.65

 48.51

 48.31

 48.17

 47.89

STORAGE

+0.08

+0.19

+0.19

+0.25

+0.59

+0.41

+0.33

+0.29

+0.21

+0.21

+0.08

+0.07

-0.03

+0.01

+0.04

-0.01

-0.07

-0.08

-0.08

-0.09

-0.09

-0.12

-0.12

-0.13

-0.18

-0.14

-0.14

-0.20

-0.14

-0.28

CHANGE

219

278

278

311

480

389

352

335

294

295

228

224

179

197

211

184

156

148

144

134

137

130

126

120

95

106

115

85

117

48

INFLOW

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

SPILL

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

 159

OUTLET

 7

 9

 9

 10

 7

 10

 12

 13

 16

 17

 15

 17

 18

 16

 17

 17

 15

 13

 14

 10

 13

 19

 15

 15

 16

 8

 17

 18

 19

 20

C.F.S.

 .18

 .23

 .22

 .25

 .17

 .25

 .30

 .33

 .40

 .42

 .37

 .41

 .45

 .39

 .42

 .42

 .37

 .32

 .35

 .25

 .33

 .46

 .38

 .38

 .39

 .19

 .41

 .44

 .48

 .50

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-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2010 RUN DATE: 07/01/2010

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +1.05 6,115 4,770 390 422 10.46 .00

ACRE-FEET +1,050 12,129 9,461 774 837

COMMENTS:

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

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 774

OUTLET

TOTAL

 9,461

 10,235

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2009 25.09

 46.83

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*William A. Marshall, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 57168;

First District (4th Division) —

July 25, 1973.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Robert Motta and John T. Moran, Jr., Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Kenneth L. Gillis and John C. O’Rourke, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE BURMAN.