alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001045536
<NAME> NOVACARE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                       318
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,532
<PP&E>                                           5,414
<DEPRECIATION>                                     924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,431
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           273
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,421
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,271,757
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,257,766<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,581<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   292
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 919
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,456
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<FN>
<F1>"Total Costs" consist of cost of services and selling and administrative
expenses.
<F2>"Other Expenses" consist of amortization of goodwill offset by interest income.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsJet vortex generators for turbulent flow separation controlA parametric study was performed with jet vortex generators to determine their effectiveness in controlling flow separation associated with low speed turbulent flow over a two dimensional rearward-facing ramp. Results indicate that flow separation control can be accomplished with the level of control achieved being a function of jet speed, jet orientation (with respect to the free stream direction), and orifice pattern (double row of jets vs. single row). Compared to slot blowing, jet vortex generators can provide an equivalent level of flow control over a larger spanwise region (for constant jet flow area and speed).Document ID19900018343Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsSelby, Gregory*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA., United States)*Lin, J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Howard, F.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186959NAS 1.26:186959Accession Number90N27659Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-1071Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900018343.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
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43127

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL EPPS WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 315

Filed: January 8, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified terms of twenty-five years, with 

minimum periods of confinement of nine years, for two counts of sexual abuse of 

a child under the age of sixteen, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Daniel Epps Williams pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a child under the age 

of sixteen. I.C. § 18-1506(1)(b). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were 

dismissed. The district court sentenced Williams to consecutive unified terms of twenty-five 

years, with minimum periods of confinement of nine years. Williams appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Williams’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
#### Nathan J. Miller and Another, Respondents, v. Palmer L. Corker, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-80469-CIV-MARRA

NELSON FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE WALKING COMPANY,

a foreign for-profit corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO CONFER, 

FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT AND FILE JOINT DISCOVERY REPORT

Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ, through undersigned counsel and in compliance with 

this Court’s Order Requiring Counsel to Confer, File Joint Scheduling Report and File Joint 

Discovery Report dated March 23, 2020 [D.E. 4], by filing this Notice and serving the aforesaid 

Order attached as Exhibit A. 

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 303

Plantation, Florida 33324

Telephone: (954) 362-3800

Facsimile: (954) 362-3779

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com

By /s/ Roderick V. Hannah

Roderick V. Hannah

Fla. Bar No. 435384

Case 9:20-cv-80469-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 27th day of April, 2020, a true and correct of the 

foregoing was electronically filed and served via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing 

generated by CM/ECF on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List below:

Heather Meglino, Esq.

SPIRE LAW FIRM

12249 Science Drive, Suite 155

Orlando, FL 32826

(407) 494-0135

heather@spirelawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant

THE WALKING COMPANY

/s/ Roderick V. Hannah

 Roderick V. Hannah

Case 9:20-cv-80469-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 2 of 2
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 Quarterly Report of Skynet Telematics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Tomas George Wilmot, President 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Tomas George Wilmot
------------------------
    Tomas George Wilmot
    President

April 30, 2007


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Allen FERGUS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4748.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 6, 2006.

Robert B. Rigney, Protogyrou & Rigney, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. ■ Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Vince Gambale, Sherrie S. Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

*803PER CURIAM:

James Allen Fergus appeals his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). He contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. We affirm.

Fergus contends that the evidence did not support his conspiracy conviction. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion. *United States v. Alerre,*430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a claim of insufficient evidence, “[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). We have reviewed the trial testimony in the joint appendix and are convinced that the evidence was sufficient to convict Fergus. *See United States v. Strickland,*245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir.2001) (discussing elements of offense); *United States v. Cardwell,*433 F.3d 378, 390 (4th Cir.2005) (“It is no defense to a conspiracy charge that one’s role in the conspiracy is minor.”).

Accordingly, we affirm Fergus’ conviction. 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*
§ 206.222 Applicant eligibility. The following entities are eligible to apply for assistance under the State public assistance grant: ( a ) State and local governments.
( b ) Private non-profit organizations or institutions which own or operate a private nonprofit facility as defined in § 206.221(e).
( c ) Indian tribes or authorized tribal organizations and Alaska Native villages or organizations, but not Alaska Native Corporations, the ownership of which is vested in private individuals.
[55 FR 2307, Jan. 23, 1990, as amended at 82 FR 44, Jan. 3, 2017]
§ 314.5 Federal Share. ( a ) For purposes of this part, “Federal Share” means that portion of the current fair market value of any Project Property attributable to EDA's participation in the Project. EDA may rely on a current certified appraisal of the Project Property prepared by an appraiser licensed in the State where the Project Property is located to determine the fair market value. In extraordinary circumstances and at EDA's sole discretion, where EDA is unable to determine the current fair market value, EDA may use other methods of determining the value of Project Property, including the amount of the award of Investment Assistance or the amount paid by a transferee. The Federal Share shall be the current fair market value or other valuation as determined by EDA of the Property after deducting: ( 1 ) Reasonable repair expenses, if any, incurred to put the Property into marketable condition; and
( 2 ) Sales, commission and marketing costs.
( b ) The Federal Share excludes that portion of the current fair market value of the Property attributable to acquisition or improvements before or after EDA's participation in the Project, which are not included in the total Project costs. For example, if the total Project costs are $100, consisting of $50 of Investment Assistance and $50 of Matching Share, the Federal Share is 50 percent. If the Property is disposed of when its current fair market is $250, the Federal Share is $125 (*i.e.,* 50 percent of $250). If $10 is spent to put the Property into salable condition, the Federal Share is $120 (*i.e.,* 50 percent of ($250-$10)).
[73 FR 62870, Oct. 22, 2008, as amended at 79 FR 76137, Dec. 19, 2014; 82 FR 57060, Dec. 1, 2017]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Fitness For Duty Rule

## HPPOS-216 PDR-9111220013

See the memorandum from L. J. Cunningham to R. R. Bellamy (and others) dated December 7, 1989.

The intent of 10 CFR 26.24 (a) (3), which requires drug testing "immediately ... after accidents in individual performance resulting ... in a radiation exposure or release ....," is not for minor releases. NRC will use reasonable interpretation of regulation to judge license action.

In November of 1988, the NRC published a proposed rule concerning the issue of Fitness for Duty (10 CFR Part 26). Paragraph 26.24 (a) (3) of this proposed rule lists instances that require drug testing "for cause." In part, this paragraph requires drug testing "immediately ... after accidents involving a failure in individual performance resulting ... in a radiation exposure or release of radioactivity in excess of regulatory limits." A strict reading of this criteria provides a very low threshold since even a minute amount or activity in a solid form, inadvertently released from site would be in excess of regulatory limits. NRC received several questions from the regions about the impact of Part 26 on the inspection program.

NUREG-1385 was issued to respond to several industry questions regarding the implementation of Part 26. Response No. 4.4 in the NUREG report, addressed testing for cause, and states that "the NRC will use reasonable interpretation of 10 CFR Part 26 to determine if the licensee acted prudently." During a seminar on Part 26 implementation, one of the rules authors verified that the reference to release of radioactivity refers to plant effluents and was not intended to apply to inadvertent releases of minor amounts of solid waste. It was also stated that once Part 26 is finalized, a Temporary Instruction will be issued and Team Inspections will be conducted to ensure proper licensee compliance. As part of this effort, inspection teams will be given appropriate training to ensure consistency of review.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 26.24

**Subject codes:** 1.1, 12.14

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
#### § 400.203 Guarantee percentage.

A guarantee issued by the Board may not exceed 85 percent of the amount of the principal of a loan to a Qualified Steel Company. Subject to the provisions of this part, one or more third parties, public or private, may guarantee repayment of part of the Unguaranteed Portion of a loan guaranteed by the Board.

[66 FR 53080, Oct. 19, 2001]
MollyJosephWardSecretaryofNaturalResourcesCOMMONWEALTHofVIRGINIADEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITYStreetaddress:629EastMainStreet,Richmond,Virginia23219Mailingaddress:P.O.Box1105,Richmond,Virginia23218www.deq.virginia.govSEP1 72015DianaEsher,DirectorAirProtectionDivision(3APOO)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029DavidK.PaylorDirector(804)698-40201-800-592-5482Reference:DefinitionofVolatileOrganicCompound(RevisionE14)DearMs.Esher:Pursuanttotherequirementsof§110oftheCleanAirAct,weareofficiallyrequestingapprovalofarevisiontotheCommonwealthofVirginiaStateImplementationPlanapprovedandsubmittedundertheauthorityof§10.1-1185oftheCodeofVirginiaandinaccordancewiththerequirementsof40CFRPart51(RequirementsforPreparation,Adoption,andSubmittalofImplementationPlans).Thisrevisionamendsthedefinitionofvolatileorganiccompound(VOC)toadd2-amino2-methyl-1-propanol(alsoknownasAMP)tothelistofsubstancesthatarenotconsideredtobeVOCsinordertobeconsistentwiththeU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)definitionasamendedonMarch27,2014(79FR17037).TheregulationamendmentswereadoptedbytheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonSeptember5,2014undertheauthorityof§10.1-1308oftheCodeofVirginia.Enclosedarethefollowing:1.Atruecopyoftheofficialregulation(RevisionE14)whichwaspublishedintheVirginiaRegisterofRegulationsonJune15,2015afterbeingdulyadoptedbytheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonSeptember5,2014,certifiedbytheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralaswithintheBoard'sstatutoryauthorityonSeptember15,2014andthusfullyenforceableunderVirginialaw,andsubmittedtotheVirginiaRegistraronbehalfoftheboardbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityasatrueandaccuratecopyofthedulyadoptedregulationonMay27,2015.2.Certificationofpublicparticipationactivitiesandcompliancewithstateadministrativeprocedures.3.Publicparticipationrecord.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinformation,pleaseletusknow.DKP\kgsTEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REGOOSIP\NONATTNPLANS\2015\El4-SIP.DOCEnclosuresDavidK.Paylor
#### CAMPBELL, Respondent, v. COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF WATERTOWN et al, Appellants.

(195 N. W. 442.)

(File Nos. 5262, 5293.

Opinion filed October 18, 1923.)

Appeal and Error — Action—Certiorari—Special 'Proceedings — Order Allowing, a Writ of Certiorari to Review Paving Proceedings Not Final and Appealable; “Action”; “Special Proceeding.”

■Certiorari is not an action, but is a special proceeding within Rev. Code 1919, Secs. 2091, 2092, 2991-3Q05, and an order allowing a writ of certiorari to review a paving proceeding is not appealable under section 31fr8, subd. 2, since it is not final.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County; Hon. W. N. Skinner, Judge.

Action by Eugene P. Campbell against the Common Council *575of the City of Watertown and others. From an.order allowing a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

*Arthur L. Sherin,*of Watertown, for. Appellants.

*Mugene P. Campbell,*of Watertown, pro se.

Appellant cited: De N'oma v. Murphy et al, 13.3 N. W. 703; Vickery v. Blair, 134 Ind. 554, 32 N. E. 881; Atwell v. Barnes, 109 Mich. 10, *66*N. W. 583; Hall v. Slabauch, 79 Mich. 484, 37 N. W. 545; People v. Drain 'Comrs., 40 Mich. 745; Comimlissioners v, Kraus, 53 Ohio St. 6I28; 42 N. W. 831; Byram v. Detroit, 50 Mich. 56, 12 N. W. 912; Burlington v. Gilbert, 3.1 Iowa 356, 7 An. Rep. 143; Patterson v. Banner, 43 Iowa 477; Presinger v. Harnes, 114 Ind. 49r, 16 N. E. 495; Board v. Plotner, 149 Ind. lió, 48 N. E. 635; Motz v. Detroit, 18 Mich. 495; Smith v. Car-low, 114 Mich. 67, 72 N. W. 22; Seattle v. Hill, 23 Wash. 92, 62 Pac. 446; State ex rel Noggle v. Crawford, 138 N. W. 2; McKenzie et al v. City of Mandan et al, 160 N. W. 852; Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 6412; State ex rel Brown v. Board of Public Works of City of Red Wing, 159 N. W. 977.

GATES, J.

This is an appeal from an order allowing a writ of certiorari to review certain proceedings of the city of Water-town in the matter of paving Third street N. W.

The appeal is dismissed because the order appealed from is not an appealable order. Section 3168, Rev. Code 1919, defines appealable orders. Certiorari is not an action. Rev. Code 1919, § 2091. It is a special proceeding. Rev. Code 1919, §§ 2092, 2991-3005. In order to be appealable, an order made in a special proceeding must affect a substantial right and- also be a final order. Rev. Code 1919, § 3168, subd. 2.

Manifestly an order allowing a writ of certiorari cannot be said to be a final order. It is merely an interlocutory order.

Note. — Reported in 195 N. W. 4'42. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and error, Key-No. 83, 3 C. J. Seo. 394.
Appendix H.1 

Memorandum of Understanding 

SC DHEC & SCFC 
Appendix H.1 - 1
Memorandum of Understanding 

between the 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

Bureau of Air Quality 

and the 

South Carolina Forestry Commission 

The agreement is made and entered into the first day of July, 1985, by and between the S.C. Department of 

Health and Environmental Control, Air Quality (hereinafter referred to as DHEC) and the S.C. Forestry 

Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 

 

Whereas DHEC and the Commission, because of mutual concerns relating to vegetative debris burning 

related to forestry, wildlife, and agriculture, desire to enter into an agreement for the purpose of 

accomplishing mutual objectives and for cooperation in protecting lives, quality of life and property of the 

citizens of South Carolina. 

Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to each party hereto, the parties agree 

as follows: 

1. The Commission assumes the responsibility to coordinate a smoke management program 

involving vegetative debris burning related to forestry, wildlife, and agriculture. 

2. The Commission assumes the responsibility for complaints and investigations of 

vegetative debris burning related to forestry, wildlife, and agriculture. Noted air quality 

regulatory violations will be referred to DHEC. 

3. The Commission takes an active role in training for, coordinating, and encouraging the 

use of The Smoke Management Guidelines within the forestry, wildlife, and agricultural 

communities. 

4. The Commission will enforce Precautions Law and require that parties obtain 

authorization as prescribed by law. 

5. The Commission will continue to keep Burning Authorization and Smoke Management 

records. 

6. DHEC shall retain the duty and authority to implement and enforce Air Pollution 

Regulation 62.2. Under this authority and by this agreement, DHEC relegates the 

administration of forestry, wildlife, and agricultural burning and resulting emissions to 

the Commission. 

7. DHEC shall promptly notify the Commission of any circumstances, such as an Air 

Pollution Episode, which would require special action regarding open burning. 

8. DHEC shall have the authority to propose and adopt amendments to Air Pollution 

Control Regulation 62.2; however DHEC shall consult and work with the Commission in 

identifying provisions of the existing regulations which require amendments and in 

developing new regulations concerning emissions from open burning. 

Appendix H.1 - 2