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

Seabird Viewing Study Results

■ Home States of Seabird/Island Recreationists

■ Reported Number of Visits per year for Coastal

Recreation

■ Seabird Watching of Maine Island Trail Association

Members

■ Location of Bird-watching Activity

Shorebird migration

Photo by Bob Buchanan
Appendix H – Seabird Viewing Study Results

H-2 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Home States of Seabird/Island Recreationists

Maine Audubon Society 

 

Island Trail Association 

State N % of Total State N % of Total 

AZ 1 0.1% AK 1 0.1% 

CT 3 0.3% CA 10 0.9% 

DE 1 0.1% CO 2 0.2% 

FL 2 0.2% CT 40 3.7% 

MA 13 1.2% DC 2 0.2% 

MD 2 0.2% FL 9 0.8% 

ME 177 16.2% GA 2 0.2% 

NH 10 0.9% IL 1 0.1% 

NJ 1 0.1% IN 1 0.1% 

NY 3 0.3% LA 2 0.2% 

PA 1 0.1% MA 136 12.4% 

RI 2 0.2% MD 12 1.1% 

SC 1 0.1% ME 435 39.8% 

Missing 2 0.2% MI 2 0.2% 

TOTAL 219 20.0% MN 3 0.3% 

 MO 2 0.2% 

 NC 4 0.4% 

 NH 79 7.2% 

 NJ 20 1.8% 

 NM 1 0.1% 

 NY 35 3.2% 

 OH 5 0.5% 

 PA 18 1.6% 

 QUEBEC 2 0.2% 

 RI 7 0.6% 

 SC 1 0.1% 

 TX 2 0.2% 

 VA 5 0.5% 

VT 26 2.4% 

 WA 4 0.4% 

 WI 2 0.2% 

 Missing 4 0.4% 

 TOTAL 875 80.0% 

Dr. Charles Colgan, Professor of Public Policy and Management, University of Southern Maine, 1995
Seabird Viewing Study Results

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 H-3

Reported number of visits per year for coastal recreation 

1-5 6-10 11-20 21-40 41-60 >60 Missing 

Maine Residents 202 269 45 40 10 6 39 

Non Maine Residents 320 95 33 8 8 6 13 

Maine Residents 33.1% 44.0% 7.4% 6.5% 1.6% 1.0% 6.4% 

Non Maine Residents 66.3% 19.7% 6.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.2% 2.7% 

Seabird Watching of Maine Island Trail Association Members 

 

N 

 

Percent 

Do you consider sea bird 

viewing or photography as 

a...

 

 Regular part of island 

recreation 

 

518 

 

59.2% 

 Occasional part of island 

recreation 

 

275 

 

31.4% 

 Infrequent part of island 

recreation 

 

42 

 

4.8% 

 Rarely a part of island 

recreation 

 

32 

 

3.7% 

 Missing 

8 

 

0.9%

Location of Bird -Watching Activity 

 

N Percent 

Kittery to Portland 350 11.8% 

Portland to the Kennebec River 507 17.1% 

Kennebec River to Port Clyde 564 19.1% 

Port Clyde to Verona 520 17.6% 

Verona to Blue Hill 520 17.6% 

Blue Hill to Schoodic Point 297 10.0% 

Schoodic Point to Quoddy Head 201 6.8%
### §876. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 89–661, Oct. 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 911, which authorized advances and expenditures from certain judgment funds and exempted distributions to members from Federal and State income taxes, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7218

DAVID LEE CARR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NICHOLAS HUN, Ex-Commissioner, Department of

Corrections in his Individual Capacity; LARRY

MCNEELY, Commissioner, Department of Corrections in his Individual Capacity; WILLIAM C.

DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center in his Individual Capacity; ROY WHITE,

Medical Administrator CMS Huttonsville Correctional Center in his Individual Capacity;

BRENDA STARR, Employment Officer, Huttonsville

Correctional Center in her Individual Capacity; ELLEN COLLETT, Dental Assistant, Huttonsville Correctional Center in her Individual

Capacity; MARY THOMPSON, RN, Nurse CMS,

Huttonsville Correctional Center in her Individual Capacity; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, CMS Huttonsville Correctional Center in its Individual Capacity; JOHN

DOES, Unknown Agents, Huttonsville Correctional Center in his or her Individual Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-56-2)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998
2

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie K. Kiser, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia; Mark Sheridan

Brennan, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Carr appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion for a restraining order and dismissing his civil action with

prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Carr v. Hun, No. CA-97-56-2 (N.D.

W. Va. July 28, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terence Jerome RICHARDSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7800.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 6, 2006.

*793Terence Jerome Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Terence Jerome Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), in which he sought reconsideration of the denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
(No. 988

Claimant awarded $3,888.00.)

#### Dora Girhard, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 19,*1927.

Workmen’s1 compensation *act*— award *may he made under.*Where an employee of the State is killed while in the performance of his duty, an award may he made and the basis of compensation fixed by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Kasserman and Kasserman, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts as appearing in this case are not disputed. It appears that Paul W. Girhard was an employe of the automobile department of the Secretary of State’s office as an Automobile Investigator at a salary of $150.00 per month and expenses. He was furnished a motorcycle with side car in which to travel and was ordered to do duty in different parts of the State. On Oct. 25,1925, under orders from the Secretary of State’s 'office, he proceeded on his motorcycle to Fairmont a racing track near Collinsville, Illinois, to assist in taking care of the traffic there, and while returning from such employment on Oct. 31, 1925, to his home in Newton, Illinois, over Route 11, and when just east of Vandalia' near an inter*260section he met an automobile approaching with its bright lights on, while at the same time there was a horse and buggy in front of them. Presumably the lights from the approaching car blinded him causing his motorcycle to strike the wheels of the buggy upsetting his motorcycle and throwing him to the pavement, his head striking the concrete causing a fracture of the skull and concussion of the brain which caused his death on Nov. 6, 1925.

The Attorney General comes and files statement, brief and argument in which the facts are admitted in so far as the deceased was a State employe and was engaged in a line of duty as such employe at the time of his death by said accident. The Secretary of State forwarded a letter to the Attorney General’s office in which he recommended and urged that this case be settled on the basis of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Attorney General also suggests that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in this case said claimant should receive $3,750.00, plus the necessary medical, surgical, hospitalization and nursing services which, appear to amount to $133.00 in this case.

It is therefore considered by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $3,883.00.
```

[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Notices]               
[Page 34423]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-47]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, June 25, 2010; 11:30 a.m. EDT.

PLACE:  Via Teleconference. Public Dial In: 1-800-597-7623, Conference 
ID  82122192.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public, except where noted otherwise.

I. Approval of Agenda
II. State Advisory Committee Issues
     Florida SAC
III. Program Planning
     Consideration of Discovery Plan and Project Outline for 
Report on Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions
IV. Adjourn

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at 
least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-
8116.

    Dated: June 15, 2010.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-14825 Filed 6-15-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

39 40 41 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
### **Subchapter C—Prohibited Acts**

Sec.
5861.
Prohibited acts. 1

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior subchapter C consisted of sections 5851 to 5854, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1227.

1  Editorially supplied. Subchapter added by Pub. L. 90–618 without a subchapter analysis.
### §1831. Purpose

It is the purpose of this subchapter to provide grants for the encouragement of endowment funds for the operation and improvement of tribally controlled colleges or universities.

(Pub. L. 95–471, title III, §301, as added Pub. L. 98–192, §13, Dec. 1, 1983, 97 Stat. 1341; amended Pub. L. 105–244, title IX, §901(b)(6), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1828.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–244 substituted "colleges or universities" for "community colleges".

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

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–244 effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105–244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–244, set out as a note under section 1001 of Title 20, Education.
#### Johnson *v.*Ware.

Atkinson, J.

1. A ground of a motion for new trial which complains of a ruling under which certain evidence was., admitted, But which fails to disclose what objection, if any, was interposed to its admissibility at *366tlie time it was offered, can not be considered. *Smith*v. *Smith,*133 *Ga.*170 (3) (65 S. E. 414).

November 18, 1910.

Action, for penalty. Before Judge Littlejohn. Stewart superior court. December 27, 1909.

*W. H. Gurr*and *E. T.*Hickey, for plaintiff in error.

2. An attack upon a statute as unconstitutional, made for the first time in the brief of counsel in the Supreme Court, will not be considered. In this connection see *Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co.*v. *Hardin,*110 *Ga.*433 (35 S. E. 681).

3. The evidence was conflicting, but sufficient to support the verdict; and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices*concur.'
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22573]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Jersey Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a conference 
call of the New Jersey Advisory Committee will convene at 11 a.m. and 
adjourn at 12 p.m., Wednesday, October 20, 2004. The purpose of the 
conference call is to conduct project planning.
    This conference call is available to the public through the 
following call-in number: 1-800-473-8693, access code: 26575727. Any 
interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the 
meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated 
using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines, and the 
Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no 
charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. 
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and access code.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Ivy 
L. Davis of the Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7533 by 4 p.m. on 
Tuesday, October 19, 2004.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, October 1, 2004.
Ivy L. Davis,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 04-22573 Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                             
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-31-1998               
<PERIOD-START>                  NOV-01-1998              
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1999              
<CASH>                            1,291,123             
<SECURITIES>                      1,146,429
<RECEIVABLES>                       810,360 
<ALLOWANCES>                         27,210
<INVENTORY>                       2,384,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  5,944,918
<PP&E>                              643,633
<DEPRECIATION>                      488,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    6,204,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               439,605       
<BONDS>                                   0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0    
<PREFERRED>                               0    
<COMMON>                             30,786           
<OTHER-SE>                        5,734,423            
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      6,204,814            
<SALES>                           1,330,798           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,330,798             
<CGS>                               661,605          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     1,139,018            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (31,448)           
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     223,228           
<INCOME-TAX>                         89,000           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 134,228           
<DISCONTINUED>                            0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0     
<CHANGES>                                 0     
<NET-INCOME>                        134,228         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .04   
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .04       
        



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of John M. Balsam, Deceased. Clarice Dixson, Formerly Balsam, Appellant; Dorothea F. Balsam, as Administratrix of the Estate of John M. Balsam, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

When prima facie proof of the validity of the Arkansas decree was produced by the moving party in support of the motion to strike out as sham the allegations respecting the invalidity of such divorce decree, it was the duty of appellant to come forward with proof to show that the allegations sought to be struck out were not, in fact, false. *(Levy*v. *Jones,*269 App. Div. 295; *Zwerdling*v. *Bent,*264 App. Div. 195; *People*v. *McCumber,*18 N. Y. 315, 324-325.) In the absence of such proof, the motion to strike out as sham the allegations respecting the invalidity of the Arkansas divorce decree was properly granted. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See *post,*p. 769.]
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40190

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Pedro Guerrero-Garcia, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-2148-1

Before King, Elrod, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro GuerreroGarcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerrero-Garcia has not filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40190 Document: 00515887227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2021
No. 20-40190

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 20-40190 Document: 00515887227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2021
#### § 4.451-1 How initiated.

The Government may initiate contests for any cause affecting the legality or validity of any entry or settlement or mining claim.
July 27 , 2015

Mr. Robert Firth

3700 Airport Road

Suite 405

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Dear Mr

. Firth :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explain s why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your July 2 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 269 7 ), but

we are unable to process your request any furth er. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or h ow the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , A irmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016 (the Form 10-K),
filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 21, 2016



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ NICOLE SCHALTENBRAND
|Nicole Schaltenbrand    
|Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         The undersigned executive officer of PFS Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.




                                                /s/ Stuart M. Suggs
                                              --------------------------
                                              Name: Stuart M. Suggs
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 27, 2003
#### § 3504.21 What are the minimum royalty rates?

| Commodity | Minimum royalty rate |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Phosphate | 5% of gross value of the output of phosphates or phosphate rock and associated or related minerals. |
| (b) Sodium | 2% of the quantity or gross value of the output of sodium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to market. |
| (c) Potassium | 2% of the quantity or gross value of the output of potassium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to market. |
| (d) Sulphur | 5% of the quantity or gross value of the output of sulphur at the point of shipment to market. |
| (e) Gilsonite | No minimum royalty rate. |
| (f) Hardrock Minerals | No minimum royalty rate. |
| (g) Asphalt | 25 cents per ton (2,000 pounds) of marketable production. |