alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sa c rame nt o River

SSUUTTTTEE RR CCOO

CCOOLLUUSSAA CC OO

CCOOLLUUSSAA CC OO

20 24 19

25 30 29

31 36 32

17 18 13

33

28

26

35

23

14

T15N R1W T15N R1E

20

Meridian

76.15 L

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion Contract No. 14-06-200-930A-R-1

Exhibit B

Chesney, Adona

725-202-15

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Date: October 29, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\chesney_adona\chesney.mxd
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4785 

To extend by 19 days the authorization for the special assessment for the 

Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2022 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend by 19 days the authorization for the special 

assessment for the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIAL 

4 ASSESSMENT FOR DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING 

5 VICTIMS’ FUND. 

6 Section 3014(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by strik8 ing ‘‘September 11’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 99.1



                            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 Quarterly  Report of Iowa First  Bancshares  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kim K.
Bartling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Kim K. Bartling
-----------------------------------
Kim K. Bartling
Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating Officer & Treasurer

May 15, 2003



                                       1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                             EVERGREENBANCORP, INC.

                            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 EvergreenBancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
G. Filer II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ William G. Filer II
-----------------------
William G. Filer II
Chief Financial Officer

March 18, 2004
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
     I, Stephen A. Lightstone, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Premium Standard Farms, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation: and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2005    /s/ Stephen A. Lightstone   Stephen A. Lightstone
§ 4.403 Finality of decision; reconsideration. ( a ) The Board's decision is final agency action and is effective on the date it is issued, unless the decision itself provides otherwise.
( b ) The Board may reconsider its decision in extraordinary circumstances. ( 1 ) A party that wishes to request reconsideration of a Board decision must file a motion for reconsideration with the Board within 60 days after the date of the decision.
( 2 ) The motion may include a request that the Board stay the effectiveness of its decision.
( 3 ) Any other party to the original appeal may file a response to a motion for reconsideration with the Board within 21 days after service of the motion, unless the Board orders otherwise.
( 4 ) A motion for reconsideration will not stay the effectiveness or affect the finality of the Board's decision unless so ordered by the Board for good cause.
( 5 ) A party does not need to file a motion for reconsideration in order to exhaust its administrative remedies.
( c ) A motion for reconsideration must: ( 1 ) Specifically describe the extraordinary circumstances that warrant reconsideration; and
( 2 ) Include all arguments and supporting documents.
( d ) Extraordinary circumstances that may warrant granting reconsideration include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Error in the Board's interpretation of material facts;
( 2 ) Recent judicial development;
( 3 ) Change in Departmental policy; or
( 4 ) Evidence that was not before the Board at the time the Board's decision was issued and that demonstrates error in the decision.
( e ) If the motion cites extraordinary circumstances under paragraph (d)(4) of this section, it must explain why the evidence was not provided to the Board during the course of the original appeal.
( f ) The Board will not grant a motion for reconsideration that: ( 1 ) Merely repeats arguments made in the original appeal, except in cases of demonstrable error; or
( 2 ) Seeks relief from the legally binding consequences of a statute or regulation.
[75 FR 64664, Oct. 20, 2010]
EXHIBIT 32

                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  Chancellor  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Maxwell
Grant,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal  Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report 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  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


DATE: May 13, 2011                    /s/ Maxwell Grant
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Maxwell Grant, Chief Executive Officer and
                                      Principal Financial Officer
### §5242. Denaturing materials

Methanol or other denaturing materials suitable to the use for which the denatured distilled spirits are intended to be withdrawn shall be used for the denaturation of distilled spirits. Denaturing materials shall be such as to render the spirits with which they are admixed unfit for beverage or internal human medicinal use. The character and the quantity of denaturing materials used shall be as prescribed by the Secretary by regulations.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1369; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5242, acts Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 645; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §206(e), 72 Stat. 1431, related to deposit of spirits in warehouses, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior sections 5303, 5310(a) and 5331(a)(1), (2), act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 655, 658, 661, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Travel the Shaker Historic Trail
- 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

### Age and correlation of the Chattanooga shale and the Maury 
formation

#### Professional Paper 286

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                
    (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/pp286 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:10:36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-60987-RAR

LISA JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. 

______________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 48],

of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss filed on April 27, 2023. The Report recommends that the 

Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, [ECF No. 42]. See

Report at 1. Specifically, the Report recommends that Plaintiff be awarded attorney’s fees in the 

amount of $12,031.97 and costs in the amount of $905.00. Id. at 12. The time for objections has 

passed, and there are no objections to the Report.

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must 

review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, 

however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 

addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the 

Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where 

objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a 

Case 0:20-cv-60987-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

magistrate[] [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when 

neither party objects to those findings.”) (emphasis in original; alterations added). 

To date, no objections have been received. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to 

review the Report for clear error. Finding none after carefully reviewing the Motion, the Report, 

the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report, [ECF No. 48], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $12,031.97 and costs in 

the amount of $905.00.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of May, 2023.

________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-60987-RAR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2023 Page 2 of 2
USCA11 Case: 24-10903     Document: 7     Date Filed: 04/09/2024     Page: 1 of 2 Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG   Document 189   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2024   Page 1 of 2

USCA11 Case: 24-10903     Document: 7     Date Filed: 04/09/2024     Page: 2 of 2 Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG   Document 189   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2024   Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.R.W.

PETITION OF: J.D.W., NATURAL

FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 265 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of August, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

CHRISTINE MARIE SHENOI, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v. RAVEEN SHENOI, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 2D21-1537 September 2, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia J. Newton, Judge. Ingrid Anderson, Clearwater, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Jane H. Grossman, St. Petersburg, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
PER CURIAM. This is an appeal brought by the former wife and cross-appeal brought by the former husband challenging the final judgment of dissolution and the amendment thereto entered following a partial2

grant of a motion for rehearing. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution without further comment with one exception. There is not a sufficient basis for this court to determine whether the retroactive child support awarded included appropriate consideration by the trial court of any amounts already paid for the benefit of the child. See § 61.30(17)(b), Fla. Stat. (2020); Carter v. Carter , 294 So. 3d 384, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (finding error where mortgage payments that were already paid for the benefit of the child were not calculated into the retroactive child support obligation and stating that "[s]ection 61.30(17)(b), Florida Statutes[,] requires the court to consider all actual payments made to the other parent for the benefit of the child"). That portion of the final judgment reflecting an award of retroactive child support accordingly is reversed. We remand the matter to the trial court to indicate whether any amounts already paid by the former husband for the benefit of the child during the retroactive child support period were counted and to adjust that award if necessary. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. MORRIS, C.J., and VILLANTI and SMITH, JJ., Concur.3

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### § 3811.2 Lands: Specific.
#### Harold S. Bryson, Appellant, v. Texagon Mills, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
No. 32,717

#### Dr. Clyde Gray, *Appellant,*v. Sam H. Penley, *Appellee.*

(56 P. 2d 113)

Opinion filed April 11, 1936.

*Albert M. Cole,*of Holton, for the appellant.

*Floyd W. Hobbs,*of Holton, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This action originated as one in replevin, and this appeal is chiefly concerned with certain supplemental proceedings for the collection of the judgment.

Heretofore on some date not shown, the plaintiff Gray replevied a herd of cattle in the possession of defendant Penley. When the cause came on for trial plaintiff dismissed his action, and on October 14, 1932, defendant was given judgment for the return of the cattle or for $180.25 with interest.

On July 28, 1934, defendant, as judgment creditor, caused garnishment summons to be served on one Ernest Walker who answered that he was indebted to Gray in the sum of $80.

Gray filed an answer in which he averred that he had returned the livestock which had been the subject matter of the action in replevin and had paid the costs. Gray concluded with a prayer that the clerk of the court be directed to enter full satisfaction of the judgment in the replevin case.

*655The cause was heard by the court. Plaintiff, defendant, and other witnesses gave testimony; the trial court found the issues in favor of Penley; directed the garnishee to pay over to him the $80 he admitted owing Gray, and directed that this sum be credited on the judgment theretofore entered in the replevin action.

Plaintiff Gray appeals, contending that the evidence showed that he had returned the property involved in the replevin case, and in consequence that he was entitled to have the judgment in that case marked satisfied. The evidence, indeed the plaintiff’s own testimony, will not bear such an interpretation. There is a seeming want of candor in both briefs; the record is too scant to fully apprise the court; an inference may be deduced that some sort of ineffective hocus pocus -relating to the return of some of the replevied cattle had been attempted; yet plaintiff admitted that he had sold some of the cattle and had pocketed the proceeds, and that he actually had possession of some of the cattle at the very time of the hearing of the proceedings in garnishment.

Appellee suggests that less than $100 is involved and that this appeal should be dismissed. Be that as it may, the judgment of the district court is unassailable, and it is therefore affirmed.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1115 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-011-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 37 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: to prevent the use of inaccurate engine performance data in calculating maximum gross weight 

by revising the Operating Limitations section of the rotorcraft flight manual.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $0

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour)

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $85 

Total US Fleet Cost $3,145

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: John Coffey
|   | (1) | The      Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Name:                |  Robert F.      Mangano                     |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Title:     |  President and      Chief Executive Officer |
|  Date:                     |  March 26,      2010                        |

|  Name:          | Joseph M.      Reardon                  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Title:                                                       | Senior      Vice President andTreasurer |
|  Date:                                        |  March 26,      2010               |

----