alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1415-C
Mean annual precipitation and evapotranspiration—PLATE 1
Kontis, A.L., and others, 2004, Regional hydrology and simulation of flow
in stratified-drift aquifers in the glaciated northeastern United States
83° 82° B1° 80° 79° 78° 7 ‘76° 75° 74° 73° 72 til 70° 69° 68° 67°
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
47°
Jaze
.
An usTOnk
46° |
of 46°
Ny
iN
x
» \
~.
x

45°

|
|
|
|

ae
:
7%
¢
wee
-
fea a
ASHTABLIA
— eae. GEAUGA
> i | BE aioca / ay
/ |
BORE }

are

| POATACE

--

CATTARAUGUS

CRAWFORD

-—" LAKE

ONTARIO

VS

MYconme,
oN)

ew

StIVTERW BENE

7 bg
/ = JEFFEBEUN.
‘

HAMILTON

oO

~ HERKIMER
ONEIDA

FULTON

=

| neon sum: ae

CORTLAND |

OTSEGO

Ly Gy k 5s
{
)

ae
p=

at

DELAWARE

SULLIVAN

OhANGE

i
\ a Ce ENE

rx jw SUSSEX
> MONROE A 4_ PASSAIC
F we 7 : ¢ .
sS warren ,
ow BS

a ny be ”

iis

) SCHUHaRIE
\

DUTIES:
SULLIVAN
\GBE

© rocktann

CANADA, | a

HEED STATES
T «< f i SANKLIN OF LEANS:
)/ Le

KS

FRANKLIN

LAMGILLE

i ¥
CALESOAIN Fr
Paitresven 4 x}

~
‘I N

.

WasitGhy

GRAFTON

4)
(HAM PS
Wins
Pa ING Te Fs

y)
G Suva)
t

BENNINGTON

MERRItN A Ci

Be! Ke \

WINDHAM.
——.

CHESHIAE

SCMESECT.20'

|
‘i

EONS tt AE

ALBANY FRANKLIN

/ HAMPSHIRE
GREENE COPS tA ,
4 1

WORCESTER

/ —!

i
ULSTER |)

HARTFORD , TOLLAND nn | PROVIDENCE
UTCHFIELD | : |. Bist
k CONNECTICUT
| ’ aa vnc \ NEW LONDON a"
PUTNAM NEWHAVEN =" —
FAIRFIELD
WESTCHESTER x

Ss ie

NS

NEW

- NS
| come | ee BELKNAP

Ly}
m | (

i / BERKSHIRE AV A Ss A C H 6) S E aT S y

WV
“ PISCATAOUEN
3

f

SCMBRSED PENOBSCOT

E

tase
WASHINGTON
FRANKLIN
HANCOCK
/ LINCOLN . ; Dy ae
{\NDROSCOGGIN y aay
 SAGAYAHOC’ f i
« fay a“
CARROLL utd} .

LRE

aN

cr ATLANTIC

lee
\  ROCKINGH IM
HILLSBOROUGH
p~
* = AN
OCE
-—-—--—--—-—- SSEX =“
: ee “
MIDDLESEX
EXPLANATION
Mean annual precipitation, 1951-80—Interval, in inches, is variable. Darker
f colors represent higher precipitation By 2°
"NORFOLK

ae
—32—
—32—
Ea

18
a Zone of approximately equal mean annual evapotranspiration, 1951-80, in inches

16

KL Limit of Wisconsinan glaciation, after White (1982), Shepps and others (1959),
Crowl and Sevon (1980), and Stanford and others (1990) = 41

———— Arbitrary limit of study area where not at limit of Wisconsinan glaciation

This map and the companion runoff map (Plate 2) were drawn interactively. Data control points
for both maps are shown on Plate 2

i LONG-TERM MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (1951-80) IN THE GLACIATED NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

By
A.D. Randall
2004
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, David C. Milholm, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Double Eagle PetroleumCo.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for small business issuers and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 12, 2005 /s/ David C. Milholm   David C. Milholm   Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 817

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 817.100 Contemporaneous reclamation.

Reclamation efforts, including but not limited to backfilling, grading, topsoil replacement, and revegetation, on all areas affected by surface impacts incident to an underground coal mine shall occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations, except when such mining operations are conducted in accordance with a variance for concurrent surface and underground mining activities issued under § 785.18 of this chapter. The regulatory authority may establish schedules that define contemporaneous reclamation.

[48 FR 24652, June 1, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
Exhibit 11

            DETECTION SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                
        Consolidated Computation of Net Income Per Common
                   And Common Equivalent Share


For the Three Months Ended:                           June 30, 1997
                                                      -------------
                                                                   
Net Income                                               $1,133,234
 Plus:  amortization of redeemable stock                     11,984
                                                          ---------
Adjusted net income applicable to common stock           $1,145,218
                                                          =========
                                                                   
Number of Shares                                                   
Weighted average number of shares                         4,508,453
Common Stock equivalent due to assumed exercise                    
  of stock options and warrants and deferred                       
  compensation plan shares                                  602,866
                                                          ---------
                                                          5,111,319
                                                          =========
                                                                   
Net Income per Common and Common Equivalent share             $0.22
                                                               ====
#### § 90.1 Scope.

This part 90 establishes the option of miners who are employed at coal mines and who have evidence of the development of pneumoconiosis to work in an area of a mine where the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift is continuously maintained at or below the applicable standard as specified in § 90.100. The rule sets forth procedures for miners to exercise this option, and establishes the right of miners to retain their regular rate of pay and receive wage increases. The rule also sets forth the operator's obligations, including respirable dust sampling for part 90 miners. This part 90 is promulgated pursuant to section 101 of the Act and supersedes section 203(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended.
#### WILSON v. FRANKLIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by Lucy E. W. Wilson against William Franklin and another. No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
### SUBCHAPTER III—LICENSING OF PRIVATE REMOTE SENSING SPACE SYSTEMS
#### § 872.22 How does OSM distribute and award historic coal funds?

(a) To be eligible to receive historic coal funds, you must meet the following criteria:

(1) You must have and maintain an approved reclamation plan under part 884 of this chapter;

(2) You cannot be certified under section 411(a) of SMCRA; and

(3) You must have unfunded Priority 1 and 2 coal problems remaining under sections 403(a)(1) and (2) of SMCRA.

(b) If you meet the eligibility requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, we distribute these moneys to you using a formula based on the amount of coal historically produced before August 3, 1977, in your State or from the Indian lands concerned.

(c) We annually distribute historic coal funds to you as shown in the following table:

| For the Federal fiscal years beginning . . . | The amount of historic coal funds we annually distribute to you will be . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 | 50 percent of the amount we calculate using the formula described in paragraph (b) of this section. |
| (2) October 1, 2009 and October 1, 2010 | 75 percent of the amount we calculated using the formula described in paragraph (b) of this section. |
| (3) October 1, 2011 and continuing through September 30, 2035 | 100 percent of the amount we calculate using the formula described in paragraph (b) of this section. |
| (4) October 1, 2035 (fiscal year 2036), and thereafter | 100 percent of the amount we calculate using the formula described in paragraph (b) of this section until funds are no longer available or you have reclaimed your remaining Priority 1 and 2 coal problems. |

(d) In any given year, we will only distribute to you the historic coal funds that you need to reclaim your unfunded Priority 1 or 2 coal problems. Your distribution of State or Tribal share funds under § 872.14 or § 872.17 plus your distribution of historic coal funds along with unused funds from prior allocations could be more than you need to reclaim your remaining high priority problems. If that occurs, we will reduce the historic coal funds we distribute to you to the amount that you need to fully fund reclamation of all your remaining Priority 1 or 2 coal problems.

(e) We award these funds to you in grants according to the provisions of part 886 of this chapter.

[73 FR 67634, Nov. 14, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 2346, Jan. 14, 2022]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH CUTRONE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-435

[December 6, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13-8247 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Cutrone appeals the court’s denial of his motion to correct 

sentencing error. In the underlying prosecution, the State filed a twocount information charging Cutrone with one count of possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon and one count of possession of ammunition 

by a convicted felon. Cutrone and the State ultimately agreed that Cutrone 

would enter a plea of no contest as to the charge of possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon. In exchange for his plea as to that count of the 

information, the State agreed he would be sentenced to 18.15 months 

imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. After Cutrone orally changed 

his plea on Count I, the court accepted his plea and orally sentenced him 

in accordance with the plea agreement. Later, the court issued a written 

sentencing order in conformity with the agreement and the court’s oral 

sentence. However, the court’s written judgment reflected a conviction as 

to both counts of the information. Cutrone’s motion to correct the error 

in the court’s judgment was denied, and he appeals. 
2

On appeal, the State concedes error. Therefore, the court’s order 

denying the motion to correct sentencing error is reversed and the case is 

remanded with instructions to correct the error in the written judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

FORST, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### §§ 585.400-585.404 [Reserved]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00835-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.E., J.A.E., and G.S.G., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA01456

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2019

AFFIRMED

Appellant M.E. appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her children, 

A.A.E., J.A.E., and G.S.G. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a 

brief in which he concluded there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The brief 

satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 

S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (recognizing Anders procedures apply in parental termination 

cases). Additionally, counsel certified he sent appellant a copy of the brief and the motion to 

withdraw, advised appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and provided 

appellant a form motion to request access to the record. This court issued an order setting deadlines 

for appellant to request the record and file a pro se brief; however, appellant did not request the 

record or file a pro se brief.
04-18-00835-CV

- 2 -

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds to 

be raised on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order. We deny counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. See id. at 27–28 (holding counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend 

through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the 

Texas Supreme Court).

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### § 560.213 How long will a royalty suspension volume for an eligible lease be effective?

A royalty suspension volume for an eligible lease will continue through the end of the month in which cumulative production from the leases in a field entitled to share the royalty suspension volume reaches that volume or the lease period ends.

[76 FR 64623, Oct. 18, 2011. Redesignated at 81 FR 18175, Mar. 30, 2016]
NO.

h,k;jr^D IN

COURTC-- - ^APPL,

FEB c^::J5

AbeIAcosta,wierfs

Israel Huerta § In the Texas Court of

vs. § Criminal Appeals

The State ofTexas § at Austin, Texas

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS

On Appeal from the Fifth Court of Appeals _0 n~,-

inCause No. 05-14-00293-CR >kBUO^

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Appellant's Motion to Extend the

Time for Filing a Petition for Discretionary Review

To the Honorable Judges ofsaid Court:

Comes now Appellant, and respectfully requests that the time for filing a

Petition for Discretionary Review in the above-styled and numbered cause be

extended. In support ofthis motion Appellant would show:

1. On January 21, 2015, Appellant's conviction was affirmed by the Fifth

Court ofAppeals in Cause No. 05-14-00293-CR styled Israel Huerta v. The State of

Texas.

2. The present deadline for filing a Petition for Discretionary Review is

February 20, 2015. Appellant respectfully requests an extension oftime until April
20,2015.

3. No previous extension oftime has been granted.

4. Appellant would show the Court that a reasonable explanation exists for the

requested extension. Appellant is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice and has limited legal knowledge. Appellant must go to the unit law

library to research and draft the issues.

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant respectfully requests that the time

for filing a Petition for Discretionary Review be extended to April 20, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

Israel Huerta, Appellant #01913686

Stevenson Unit

1525 FM 766

Cuero,TX 77954-6300

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the

Dallas County District Attorney's Office, Appellate Division, 133 N. Riverfront

Blvd., LB 19, Dallas, Texas, 75207, by depositing same in the United States Mail,

Postage Prepaid on /- Z^f , 2015.

gsyq^/ [itc/ffV~

Israel Huerta, Appellant
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical Assessment of Four-Port Through-Flow Wave Rotor Cycles with Passage Height VariationThe potential for improved performance of wave rotor cycles through the use of passage height variation is examined. A Quasi-one-dimensional CFD code with experimentally validated loss models is used to determine the flowfield in the wave rotor passages. Results indicate that a carefully chosen passage height profile can produce substantial performance gains. Numerical performance data are presented for a specific profile, in a four-port, through-flow cycle design which yielded a computed 4.6% increase in design point pressure ratio over a comparably sized rotor with constant passage height. In a small gas turbine topping cycle application, this increased pressure ratio would reduce specific fuel consumption to 22% below the un-topped engine; a significant improvement over the already impressive 18% reductions predicted for the constant passage height rotor. The simulation code is briefly described. The method used to obtain rotor passage height profiles with enhanced performance is presented. Design and off-design results are shown using two different computational techniques. The paper concludes with some recommendations for further work.Document ID19970024921Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsPaxson, D. E.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Lindau, Jules W.*(National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1997Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberAIAA Paper 97-3142NAS 1.15:107490NASA-TM-107490E-10787Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion Conference and ExhibitLocation: Seattle, WACountry: United StatesStart Date: June 6, 1997End Date: June 9, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Society for Electrical Engineers,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.Accession Number97N24625Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-26-33Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970024921.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
# ([ongre~~ 

# of tf)emniteb ~tate~ mllll1)ington. 

### llq[; 20510
January 17,2014

= The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Secretary Foxx: 

## '" w 

### J> , ., ---!:-
..,. 

## ~~'J~~:~ r';~iTi 

# ~?~~ ~~bO ::_>.:-n ;.I.:

We write to express our support for the communities' preferred bids for Essential Air Service (EAS) to Devils Lake Regional Airport, Devils Lake, North Dakota and Jamestown Regional Airport, Jamestown, North Dakota. Both Devils Lake and Jamestown have experienced numerous problems with their current EAS contract, and have communicated an interest in pursuing a new route option to Denver, which will provide a competitive option for customers. Because there are fewer regular routes to Denver from North Dakota, the airports would be well positioned to attract ridership to the nearest major western hub and subsequent connecting cities. We want to specifically address two concerns with ,thepreferred bids. The first is the increase in costs per passenger. We recognize that budgetary pressures on the EAS program require the Department ofTransportation (DOT) to be discerning with the allocation ofresources; however, we believe an up-front investment in the preferred EAS bids will yield much higher dividends for the program and the communities. With the increased attractiveness ofthe route option, paired with more reliable service, we are hopeful the popularity ofthe communities' preferred bids will result in increased ridership and allow the subsidy cost to fall in future contract periods. Second, concerns have been raised that the communities' preferred EAS bids fall short ofthe 12 round trip EAS requirement. We request that you waive this requirement to allow consideration of the EAS bids. The communities have made abundantly clear in their communications with the DOT that they will accept a lower number of round trips in exchange for more reliable service. The preferred EAS bids to Devils Lake and Jamestown would provide daily service, strongly fulfilling the DOT's mandate to provide the EAS communities with access to the national air transportation system.

### Thankyou forthe opportunity to commentonthis importantissue. 

### Ifyouhave any questions or

require additional information, pleasefeelfreeto contactourofficesfor assistance.
Sincerely,



# ~ J~~~~~



# lt7~

U.S. Senator U.S. Senator U.S. Representative

Cc: SusanKurland, Assistant SecretaryforAviationandInternationalAffairs, U.S. Department ofTransportation DennisDeVaney, Chief, EssentialAirServiceandDomestic Analysis Division, U.S. Department ofTransportation
#### § 585.531 What happens if the value of my financial assurance is reduced?

If the value of your financial assurance is reduced below the required financial assurance amount because of a default or any other reason, you must provide additional financial assurance sufficient to meet the requirements of this subpart within 45 days or within a different period as specified by BOEM.