alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 402.21 Purpose of this subpart.

The regulations in this subpart apply to the sale of small tracts of public and acquired lands on the Gila Project, Arizona, that are subject to the reclamation laws and that may be sold to actual settlers or farmers under the Act of July 30, 1947 (61 Stat. 628; 43 U. S. C. 613-613e).

[19 FR 431, Jan. 26, 1954]
Exhibit 32.1
**CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Premium Standard Farms, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the fiscal year 2005 ending March 26, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John M. Meyer, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ John M. Meyer   John M. Meyer Chief Executive Officer May 10, 2005
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
§ 3904.14 Individual lease, exploration license, and reclamation bonds. ( a ) The BLM will determine individual lease bond amounts on a case-by-case basis. The minimum lease bond amount is $25,000.
( b ) The BLM will determine reclamation bond and exploration license bond amounts on a case-by-case basis when it approves a POD or exploration plan. The reclamation or exploration license bond must be sufficient to cover the estimated cost of site reclamation.
( c ) The BLM may enter into agreements with states to accept a state reclamation bond to cover the BLM's reclamation bonding requirements if it is adequate to cover both the Federal liabilities and all others for which it stands as security. The BLM may request additional information from the lessee or operator to determine whether the state bond will cover all of the BLM's reclamation requirements. ( 1 ) If a state bond is to be used to satisfy the BLM bonding requirements, evidence verifying that the existing state bond will satisfy all the BLM reclamation bonding requirements must be filed in the proper BLM office.
( 2 ) The BLM will require an additional bond if the BLM determines that the state bond is inadequate to cover all of the potential liabilities for your BLM leases.
Controlled Document

Controlled Documents are maintained electronically. Verify printed documents are 

current prior to use. Last printed: 11/1/2011 3:53 PM

POT HOOD INSPECTION SUMMARY CRITERIA

For visuals, see Pot Hood Inspection Visuals

Document Change History Document Owner: Ben Lengerich

REVISION 

DATE

NATURE OF REVISION DOCUMENT REVIEW 

PARTICIPANTS

5/15/08 Date of Original Document Issuance Ben Lengerich, Tom Burke

5/29/08 Added link to visuals Ben Lengerich

8/29/08 Added toe plate to end panel Ben Lengerich

6/15/09 Reviewed and revised criteria. Added 

“golf ball/softball” terminology. 

Barry Hullett, Tia Daulph, Dave 

Umbaugh, Tracy Johnson, Kathryn 

Mitchell

Good • No Corrective action required

• Seal tight

• Emissions captured

• Insignificant damage

Fair

• Corrective action 

required—within 15 

days.

• Seal not tight

• Emissions possible

• Damage present

Poor • Immediate corrective 

action required—

within 5 days.

• Seal not adequate

• Emissions probable

• Significant damage 

present

Repair SPA

1. Doors 

(Measuring 

or Tap)

Door Gap

< 1⁄2 inch

Door Gap

1⁄2 - 3 inch

Door Gap

> 3 inch Emission Control

Broken hinge 

(still shuts)

Broken hinge or 

missing door (doesn’t 

shut)

Maintenance

2. Skin 

Repair

Collectively: holes/gaps

< golf ball (4 sq in)

Collectively: 

holes/gaps

2 - 4 golf balls

Collectively: 

holes/gaps

> soft ball

Emission Control

3. Pan Damage

< 1 foot

Damage

1 – 3 feet

Damage

> 3 feet

Potlines: small bends 

(<45°)

Maint: large bends 

(>45°)

4.a Fabric: 

Bottom Damage

< 3 foot

Damage

3 – 6 feet

Damage

> 6 feet Emission Control

4.b Fabric: 

Top Damage

< 1 foot

Damage

1 – 3 feet

Damage

> 3 feet Emission Control

5. End 

Panel

Gap at widest point

Includes toe plate

< 1 inch

Gap at widest point

Includes toe plate

1 - 3 inches

Gap at widest point

Or toe plate missing

>3 inches

Emission Control

7. Stem 

Seals

Stem Seal

damaged (< 2 in gap)

Stem Seal Damaged 

(2 – 4 in gap)

Stem Seal damaged 

(> 4 sq in gap) Potlines

Revision date: 

6/15/09
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   infomration  extracted  from
     ULTRONICS CORPORATION June 30, 1996 financial  statements and is  qualified
     in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894556
<NAME>                        ULTRONICS CORPORATION

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996

<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                   1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-61000-CIV-SMITH

MARITZA HALES, an individual, on behalf 

of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CLASS ACTION 

CONCORD SERVICING CORPORATION,

an Arizona corporation, 

Defendant.

 _________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, Maritza Hales, an individual, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby 

provides notice to the Court of the settlement of the above-referenced action against the Defendant, 

Concord Servicing Corporation, an Arizona corporation.

Respectfully submitted this 17

th day of July 2020.

/s/ Robert W. Murphy __ 

ROBERT W. MURPHY, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 717223

1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Telephone: (954) 763-8660

Facsimile: (954) 763-8607

E-Mails: rphyu@aol.com

rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 2
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 17

th 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which automatically sends an electronic notification to 

the following CM/ECF participants:

Christopher Oprison, Esq.

chris.oprison@dlapiper.com

Elan Gershoni, Esq.

elan.gershoni@dlapiper.com

DLA Piper LLP (US)

200 South Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2500

Miami, Florida 33131

Counsel for Defendant

/s/ Robert W. Murphy

Attorney 

Case 0:20-cv-61000-RS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 4750.5 Application for title to wild horses and burros. ( a ) The adopter shall apply for title, using a form designated by the Director, upon signing the Private Maintenance and Care Agreement.
( b ) The authorized officer shall issue a Certificate of Title after 12 months, if the adopter has complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the authorized officer determines, based either on a field inspection or a statement provided by the adopter from a veterinarian, extension agent, local humane official, or other individual acceptable to the authorized officer, that the animal or animals covered by the Agreement have received proper care and humane treatment.
( c ) An adopter may not obtain title to more than 4 animals per 12-month period of private maintenance. Effective the date of issuance of the Certificate of Title, Federal ownership of the wild horse or burro ceases and the animal loses its status as a wild horse or burro and is no longer under the protection of the Act or regulations under this title.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marie Salavarria, Respondent. Michael J. Murphy, as Acting Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

*934All concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Evidenced-Based Approach for Estimating Decompression Sickness Risk in Aircraft OperationsEstimating the risk of decompression Sickness (DCS) in aircraft operations remains a challenge, making the reduction of this risk through the development of operationally acceptable denitrogenation schedules difficult. In addition, the medical recommendations which are promulgated are often not supported by rigorous evaluation of the available data, but are instead arrived at by negotiation with the aircraft operations community, are adapted from other similar aircraft operations, or are based upon the opinion of the local medical community. We present a systematic approach for defining DCS risk in aircraft operations by analyzing the data available for a specific aircraft, flight profile, and aviator population. Once the risk of DCS in a particular aircraft operation is known, appropriate steps can be taken to reduce this risk to a level acceptable to the applicable aviation community. Using this technique will allow any aviation medical community to arrive at the best estimate of DCS risk for its specific mission and aviator population and will allow systematic reevaluation of the decisions regarding DCS risk reduction when additional data are available.Document ID19990062137Acquisition SourceJohnson Space CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRobinson, Ronald R.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX United States)*Dervay, Joseph P.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX United States)*Conkin, Johnny*(National Space Biomedical Research Inst. Houston, TX United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1999Subject CategoryAerospace MedicineReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209374NASA/TM-1999-209374S-850Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990062137.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
IRR 2006 Sch B-3B F.z10.XLS

9/19/2007

SCHEDULE OF IRRIGATION VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO BE APPLIED IN FY 2007 ACCOUNTING

2008 IRRIGATION WATER RATES

(REFLECTED IN 2008 DEFICIT/CAPITAL RATES)

Voluntary Voluntary Payments

Date Payments Deficit to Capital 

Facility/Contractor Received Applied to in FY 2007 Sch A-6B to Sch A-2B To

Corning Canal

Proberta WD 10/10/06 IB/02 13.74 13.74 

Cross Valley Canal

Hills Valley WD 8/22/2007 IB/06 2,776.45 2,776.45 2,

Sacramento River - Willows

Driver, J & C 8/21/07 IB/06 60.93 60.93 Fedora, S/Taylor, W 8/17/07 IB/06 13.54 13.54 Howald Farms Inc 11/20/06 IB/04 247.73 247.73 Meridian Farms MWC 10/17/06 IB/04 5,747.25 5,747.25 5,Nene Ranch, LLC 10/20/06 IB/05 6,816.21 6,816.21 6,Sekhon, A & D 8/17/07 IB/06 243.75 243.75 Tenhunfeld, F 06/21/07 IB/98-05 53,059.49 53,059.49 53,

Total Sacramento River- Willows 66,188.90 66,188.90 0.00 66,

Total 68,979.09 68,979.09 0.00 68,

LEGEND:

CFO - Chief Financial Officer/Provision for Replacement Net Audit Adjustment IB- Interest Bearing NIB - Non-Interest BearingTBD - Application To Be Determined
§ 4100.0-2 Objectives. ( a ) The objectives of these regulations are to promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands to properly functioning conditions; to promote the orderly use, improvement and development of the public lands; to establish efficient and effective administration of grazing of public rangelands; and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands.
( b ) These objectives will be realized in a manner consistent with land use plans, multiple use, sustained yield, environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r); section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(b)(2)).
[60 FR 9960, Feb. 22, 1995, as amended at 71 FR 39503, July 12, 2006]
#### Otis C. Brand, Respondent, v. Frances Saphore, Appellant.

Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Mark R. Goldston, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of United Online, Inc.;

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

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

4.     The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the Registrant and we have:



5.     The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's
auditors and to the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: February 23, 2010

/s/ MARK R. GOLDSTON Mark R. Goldston Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
motion for partial summary judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court,

Clark County; Adriana Escobar, Judge.

Petitioners, state medical providers, petition this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to grant their motion for partial summary judgment regarding the proper application of NRS 41.035's cap on damages to the medical malpractice allegations in this case. However, petitioners have not shown that this court should exercise its discretion to entertain this extraordinary relief request. We the People Nev. ex rel. Angle v. Miller, 124 Nev. 874, 880, 192 P.3d 1166, 1170 (2008).

First, petitioners have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy: they may appeal the district court's damages cap decision upon the entry of the final judgment. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Second, the issue is not a purely legal question of first impression with widespread application. See State v. Webster, 88 Nev. 690, 695, 504 P.2d 1316, 1320 (1972) (whether one or more caps may apply turns on whether the allegations are sufficiently "separate, distinct and independent" thus that they may be separately maintained); see also Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Richardson Constr., Inc., 123 Nev. 382, 390 n.11, 168 P.3d 87, 92 n.11 (2007) (collecting cases interpreting NRS 41.035). Finally, judicial economy would not be served by this court entertaining this writ petition: regardless of how the statute applies, the malpractice issues are going to trial Compare Cnty. of Clark, ex rel. Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 759-60, 961 P.2d 754, 761 (1998) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting declaratory relief on how NRS 41.035 applied to medical malpractice claims before the state actor's liability had been established because an immediate decision on the damages caps issue likely would

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A 

### eC.J.

have resulted in a settlement, thus ending the case very early on). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

J.

J.

J. Gibbons



### ift-411 Hardesty



### I Parraguirre

ca8 Douglas

Saitta

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Patrick K. McKnight Ramzy P. Ladah Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A
#### John H. Levy v. Charles B. Collier, Executor.

Filed September 22, 1904.

No. 13,548.

Judgment of the district court affirmed for the reason set forth in *Cassidy v. Collier, ante,*p. 376.

Error to the district court for Douglas county: Guy R. C. Read, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Hall & McCulloch,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. C. Troup*and *Switsler & St. Clair, contra.*

*378Oldham, C.

This case stands on all fours- with *Cassidy v. Collier, ante,*p. 376, and was submitted on the same briefs, tried at the same time, by the same counsel, in the same court, on identical records. Hence, for the reasons assigned in *Cassidy v. Collier,*we recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Ames and Letton, CC., concur.

By the Court:

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
### Subpart D—Denaturation

Sec.
5241.
Authority to denature.
5242.
Denaturing materials.
5243.
Sale of abandoned spirits for denaturation without collection of tax.
5244.
Cross references.
#### STATE, Respondent, v. SCHAEFFER, Appellant.

(207 N. W. 163.)

(File No. 5881.

Opinon filed February 8, 1926.)

Criminal Law — Information—Intoxicating Liquors — Courts—Sentence —Trial Court Has Authority to Vacate Judgment and Resentence Defendant on Motion for New Trial.

Trial court, on motion for new trial, had authority to vacate judgment and resentence defendant after determining that former charge of transporting intoxicating liquor would not make manufacturing, as he was then charged, a second offense.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yankton County; Ho-n. R. B. Tripp. Judge.

Emanuel Schaeffer was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

/. *L. Meighen,*of Yankton, for Appellant.

*Buell F. Jones,*Attorney General, and *Bernard A.*Brown. Brief Attorney, of Pierre, for the State.

Respondent cited: State v. Hicks, 37 Co. 776; State v. Williams, 38 Co. 686.

GATES, P. J.

Defendant was charged with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. The information also charged that he had pleaded guilty to a like charge at a previous term of the same court. He was found guilty and sentenced as and for a felony. *366Upon a motion for new trial the trial court vacated the judgment and directed that the defendant be brought before the court for resentence. Defendant appeals.

Note. — Reported in 207 N. W- 163. See, Headnote American Key-Numbered Digest, Key-No. 996(2), 16 C. J. Sec. 3096.

■ The reasons actuating the trial court in making said order are thus stated in a memorandum opinion:

> “During the trial and in sentencing I was of the impression, under the broad language of the 1919 Session Daw, p. 293, making 'every subsequent offense’ under the prohibition law felony, the first offense, that of transporting, would make manufacturing, for which he was here ’charged, a second offense, but, on reconsideration and investigating at the office of the secretary of state, I find the session law referred to was repealed by a vote of the people, so, for a second offense, the first would have had to be the same as this, manufacturing. I am therefore convinced there was error in sentencing for a felony.”

The only assignment of error is:

> “The court erred and exceeded its authority in making its order denying a new trial to the defendant and ordering the defendant brought before the court for resentence.”

And the record before us is only sufficient to present that question, even if there had been further assignments of error. In State v. Schaller, 49 S. D. —, 207 N. W. 161, we held that the court had power to resentence the defendant under similar circumstances. That decision is controlling here, and pursuant thereto the order appealed from is affirmed.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 231]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ231.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 484]]

Public Law 106-231
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To redesignate the Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue 
 in Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main Post Office, as 
  the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 6, 
                          2000 -  [H.R. 642]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue in 
Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main Post Office, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mervyn Malcolm 
Dymally Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 6, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 642:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 145 (1999):
                                    Nov. 18, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 146 (2000):
                                    June 23, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 4.1111 Voluntary dismissal.

Any party who initiated a proceeding before OHA may seek to withdraw by moving to dismiss at any stage of a proceeding and the administrative law judge or the Board may grant such a motion.
#### Fred Hilton, Plaintiff, v. Hobart Hilton, Defendant.

Defendant’s motion for a new trial denied, with costs. All concurred.