alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 211.2 Applicability. This part applies to: ( a ) The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).
( b ) Persons filing applications with the Secretary of Transportation for proposed projects pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718, when such applications are received by the Department of Defense from the Secretary of Transportation.
( c ) A State, Indian tribal, or local official, a landowner, or a developer of a renewable energy development or other energy project seeking a review of such project by DoD.
( d ) Members of the general public from whom comments are received on notices of actions being taken by the Department of Defense under this part.
( e ) The United States.
w
az USGS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

science forachanging world U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1411-B

Porosity and hydraulic conductivity of the Redwall-Leadville zone—PLATE 2
Geldon, AL, 2002, Hydrologic properties and ground-water flow systems of the Paleozoic rocks in the Upper
Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. excluding the San Juan Basin

Q-Farmingion,

o—o

1:2,000,000
25 50 75 100 MILES
mal t = 4
25 50 75  100KILOMETERS
UNIT-AVERAGED POROSITY

Springs g

J =

Navajo

;

9 | AREA EXCLUDED FROM STUDY }

107°

BOUNDARY OF
UPPER COLORADO
RIVER BASIN

casei
J

37°

Reservoir A

Fontenelle fi )
42° Reservoir 42°

Kernmerer

a , BOUNDARY OF
2 AL UPPER COLORADO
z , RIVER BASIN

fu =f

Navajo

Reservoir bi
|
J

107°

— 36°

4 : ey a

37°

AREA EXCLUDED FROM STUDY

108°
1:2,000,000
25 50 75 100 MILES

25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

oo

UNIT-AVERAGED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

EXPLANATION

\-*<] Area where the Redwall-Leadville zone is missing because of erosion or
nondeposition

Unit-Averaged Porosity
—5— Line of equal estimated unit-averaged porosity—Location is approximate.
Interval is 1 percent

“4 Site at which unit-averaged porosity was estimated as the mean of

laboratory-determined values in a borehole interval at least 100 feet
thick and representative of the lithology of the Redwall-Leadville zone
at the site—Number shown is mean porosity in the interval, in percent

x4 Site at which unit-averaged porosity was estimated as the median of

geophysically determined values in a borehole interval at least 100 feet
thick—Number shown is median porosity in the interval, in percent
Unit-Averaged Hydraulic Conductivity

Relative unit-averaged hydraulic conductivity

Yo
Moderate

Small

—o.01-— Line of equal estimated unit-averaged hydraulic conductivity—Dashed
where approximately located. Interval, in feet per day, is variable

——_ Limit of data

Data sites
a Site at which estimate was based on permeability determined by a drill-stem
test
e Site at which estimate was based on the mean of laboratory-determined

permeability values in a borehole interval

° Site at which estimate was based on the average of hydraulic-conductivity
values determined by pressure-injection tests in a borehole interval

x Site at which estimate was based on transmissivity determined by a pumping
or flowing-well test

Base from U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. base map, 1:2,500,000

IN ARIZONA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, UTAH, AND WYOMING
By
Arthur L. Geldon
2002

UNIT-AVERAGED POROSITY AND HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF THE REDWALL-LEADVILLE ZONE OF THE MADISON AQUIFER IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND VICINITY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,781)
<INVENTORY>                                     31,743
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,952
<PP&E>                                          90,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                (62,624)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,451
<SALES>                                         83,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,692
<CGS>                                           58,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                       591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (422)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
### §308304. Authorization of appropriations

(a) Amounts.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter $2,500,000 for each fiscal year, of which—

(1) $2,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 308302 of this title; and

(2) $500,000 shall be used to carry out section 308303 of this title.

(b) Limitation.—No amount may be appropriated for the purposes of this chapter except to the Secretary for carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary as set forth in this chapter.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3235.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 308304 | 16 U.S.C. 469l–3. | Pub. L. 105–203, §5, as added Pub. L. 110–229, title III, subtitle G, §361(a)(3), May 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 801. |

Section
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00372-CV

In re Greg Daniels

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a motion for temporary relief and a petition for writ of mandamus.

We deny the motion and the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8, 52.10.

__________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Henson

Filed: June 4, 2012
#### ADLER et al. v. SCHAUMBERGER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Brokers—Right to Commission—Illegal Act.

A broker may not recover commissions, his services rendered being in violation 'of Pen. Code, § 640d, because he had no written authority to offer the property for sale.

2. Appeal—Affirmance.

A judgment for plaintiff for a nominal sum will he affirmed, he alone appealing, • though it was for services illegally rendered, so that it would have been reversed had defendant appealed.

MacLean, J., dissenting in part.

¶ 1. See Brokers, vol. 8, Cent. Dig. §§ 44, 79.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District. .

Action by Arnold Adler and another against Charles Schaumberger. From a. judgment for plaintiffs for a nominal sum, they appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN,. P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

J. D. Connolly, for appellants.

M. H. Curran, for respondent.

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

The action is for broker’s commissions. The justice found on sufficient evidence that the services were illegally rendered, for the reason that plaintiffs had no written authority to offer the property for sale. See Pen. Code, § 64od; Whiteley v. Terry (Sup.) 82 N. Y. Supp. 89. Plaintiffs were not entitled to recover anything for such services, which were in themselves a violation of the law. See Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio, 226. Nevertheless the justice gave judgment for plaintiffs in six cents damages and costs. Had the defendant appealed, the judgment would have been reversed. The plaintiffs have no cause for complaint, as they have obtained a more favorable judgment than, under the facts as found by the justice, they were entitled to have.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

FREEDMAN, P. J., concurs.

MacLEAN, J. (dissenting).

“As it appears,” reads the memorandum of decision of the trial justice, “that the plaintiffs were employed in the latter part of October, 1901, to sell the premises mentioned, on the sale of which a commission is claimed in this action,” and “the *236employment alleged was not in writing,” the plaintiffs, in offering for sale the property of the defendant, were guilty of a misdemeanor (Laws 1901, p. 312, c. 128), and not entitled to recover (Fox v. Dixon [Sup.] 12 N. Y. Supp. 267, and Charles v. Arthur [decided at this term] 84 N. Y. Supp. 284). The judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, even for nominal sum, with costs, was therefore improper. The complaint should have been dismissed, with judgment in favor of the defendant, with costs. Although the plaintiffs alone appeal, and are without cause for complaint, they should not benefit by an affirmance of a judgment palpably erroneous. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1





Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants




Scan-Graphics, Inc.
 and Subsidiaries
Limerick, Pennsylvania


We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of operations,
stockholder's equity, and cash flows of Scan-Graphics, Inc. and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 1997, prior to the reclassification for discontinued
operations described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included
in Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements and schedule are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and schedule.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of
the financial statements and schedule. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audit, the consolidated financial statements
referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the results of
operations and cash flows of Scan-Graphics, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year
ended December 31, 1997, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.



                                                                BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 13, 1998, except for Note 14,
 which is dated March 27, 1998
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00088

- CV

Trial court case number: 2021

- 83044

Trial court: 113th District Court of Harris County

On February 8, 2022, relator, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. In its mandamus petition, relator argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enter a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending a hearing on its request for a temporary inju nction.

In connection with its mandamus petition, relator also filed a “Verified Motion for Emergency Relief,” seeking “temporary relief in the form of a stay order.” Relator’s motion sought a stay of the closing of a transaction for the purchase of sev eral properties between real parties in interest Landmark Industries, Landmark Industries Energy, Landmark Petroleum, and Landmark Industries Holdings (collectively, “Landmark”), on the one hand, and Shell Retail and Convenience Operations on the other. I n their motion, relator argued that the stay was necessary to preserve the status quo “long enough for a temporary injunction hearing to take place,” because, relator contended, it holds a right of first refusal to sixty

- four tracts of land which are purpo rtedly included in the transaction

between Landmark and Shell.

On February 9, 2022, the Court granted relator’s emergency motion, staying the closing of the transaction between Landmark and Shell. Neither Landmark nor Shell filed a response to relator’s emergency motion to stay prior to the issuance of our February 9,

2022 order.

On February 17, 2022, Landmark and Shell jointly filed an “Emergency Verified Motion of Real Parties in Interest to Dissolve the February 9, 2022 Stay Order or, in the

Alterna tive, Require Relator to Post Bond.” In their motion, real parties in interest (referred to as “real parties”) requested that this Court’s “stay be dissolved, or alternatively, that[relator] be required to post bond, no later than 5:00 p.m., February 18, 2022

. ” 1 On February 18, 2022, the Court requested relator respond to the motion to dissolve no later than 9:00 a.m. on February 22, 2022. Relator filed a response to the motion to dissolve on February 22, 2022.

R eal parties’ motion to dissolve the Cour t’s February 9, 2022 stay order is deni ed

. The Court’s February 9, 2022 order staying the closing of the transaction between Landmark and Shell remains in effect until the disposition of relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus or further order of this Cou rt.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Countiss and Farris.

Date: February 24, 2022

1 We note that real parties’ in interest motion does not state why its requested relief was needed “no later than 5:00 p.m., February 18, 2022.”
### §6328. Absence in connection with funerals of fellow Federal law enforcement officers

A Federal law enforcement officer or a Federal firefighter may be excused from duty without loss of, or reduction in, pay or leave to which such officer is otherwise entitled, or credit for time or service, or performance or efficiency rating, to attend the funeral of a fellow Federal law enforcement officer or Federal firefighter, who was killed in the line of duty. When so excused from duty, attendance at such service shall for the purposes of section 1345(a) of title 31, be considered to be an official duty of the officer or firefighter.

(Added Pub. L. 103–329, title VI, §642, Sept. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 2432, §6327; renumbered §6328, Pub. L. 106–56, §1(c)(1), Sept. 24, 1999, 113 Stat. 407.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 642 of Pub. L. 103–329, which directed that this section be added "following the word 'Forces' in section 6326" was executed by adding the section after section 6327, as added by section 629(a)(1) of Pub. L. 103–329, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–56 renumbered section 6327 of this title as this section.
#### Lewis Burton *vs.*Charles Schenck.

January 18, 1889.

Summons — Impeachment of Officer’s Return of Service.

Plaintiff brought this action before a justice of the peace. The constable’s return upon the summons showed personal service upon defendant on February 21, 1887. Upon the return-day the. defendant appeared specialty, and moved to dismiss the . action, upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the defendant, offering to show by affidavits that the summons was not served on February 21, 1887, the attempted service having been made on February 22, 1887, a legal holiday. The justice denied the motion, holding the return of the officer conclusive, and entered judgment for plaintiff. On defendant’s appeal, upon questions of law alone, to the district court for Clay county, the judgment was affirmed by *Mills,*J., and the defendant again appealed.

*C. J. Cahalay,*for appellant.

*Wellcome é Perley,*for respondent.

*By the Court.*

This case is controlled by and must follow *Crosby*v. *Farmer,*39 Minn. 305, (40 N. W. Rep. 71,) decided at the present term.

Judgment reversed.
EXHIBIT 10.350

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
                                  (NO INTEREST)

$12,856.00                     Glendale, California                June 29, 2000




     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Domingo Diaz (Payor") promises to pay in lawful money
of the United States of America to Pollution Research and Control Corp., a
California corporation ("Payee"), or order, at Glendale, California, the sum of
$12,856.00 Dollars from the date hereof on the unpaid principal payable in
installments of principal only in the sum of $50.00 Dollars commencing on July
15, 2000 and payable on the same day of each month thereafter until paid in
full.

     The unpaid principal may be prepaid without penalty. Each payment hereunder
shall be credited to the principal amount.

     If each installment under this note is not paid when due, the undersigned
shall pay all costs of collection thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
whether or not suit or action is commenced to enforce payment of this note, and
Payee may, at its option, declare the entire amount of the then unpaid principal
immediately due and payable if such default is not cured within 10 days after
Payee provides the undersigned written notice of such default. The undersigned
hereby waives presentment, notice of dishonor and protest.

     This note is secured by shares of Payee's common stock, no par value (the
"Shares"), pursuant to a certain Stock Pledge Agreement, dated as of June 29,
2000 (the "Pledge Agreement").

     Upon the termination of employment of Payor as an employee of Payee for any
reason, the unpaid balance of this note shall be cancelled, and the pro rata
portion of Shares which then not fully paid for, shall be returned to Payee
pursuant to the terms of the Pledge Agreement.

                                     Payor:



                                     /s/ Domingo Diaz
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     (Signature)
Opinion issued November 10, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00798-CV

———————————

IN RE VERONICA LOWE, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Veronica Lowe, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

contending that respondent, the Honorable Judy Warne, has refused to sign an order 

transferring a suit affecting the parent-child relationship and seeking issuance of a 

writ directing respondent to sign an order transferring the proceeding to Lubbock 

County.

1

 

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of T.L.-B. and P.L.-B., Cause No. 2015-46034, 

in the 257th District Court of Harris County, the Honorable Judy Warne presiding.
2

We deny the petition and vacate our October 7, 2016 order staying the trial 

court proceedings.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.
§ 1697.3 Applicability. ( a ) These regulations are to be followed when: ( 1 ) The Selective Service System is owed a debt by an individual currently employed by another federal agency;
( 2 ) The Selective Service System is owed a debt by an individual who is a current employee of the Selective Service System; or
( 3 ) The Selective Service System employs an individual who owes a debt to another federal agency.
Third Department,

June, 1960

(June 2, 1960)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Claude Poole, Appellant.

Application for an extension of time within which to perfect appeal. Application granted and time is extended for 90 days. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### WALSH v. HANAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 22, 1903.)

Action by Bridget Walsh, administratrix of Johanna Brogan, as adminis*1150tratrix de bonis non of Michael Walsh, deceased, against John H. Hanan and others.

No opinion. Motion for reargument granted, and cause set down for Wednesday, November 11, 1903.
### §100801. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

(1) Interpretation.—The term "interpretation"—

(A) means providing opportunities for people to form intellectual and emotional connections to gain awareness, appreciation, and understanding of the resources of the System; and

(B) may refer to the professional career field of Service employees, volunteers, and partners who interpret the resources of the System.

(2) Education.—The term "education" means enhancing public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the resources of the System through learner-centered, place-based materials, programs, and activities that achieve specific learning objectives as identified in a curriculum.

(3) Related areas.—The term "related areas" means—

(A) national wild and scenic rivers and national trails;

(B) national heritage areas; and

(C) affiliated areas administered in connection with the System.

(Added Pub. L. 114–289, title III, §301(a), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1486.)
FREMONT

CARBON

SWEETWATER

ALBANY

NATRONA

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

CONVERSE

CROOK

UINTA

LARAMIE

WESTON

PLATTE

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Rawlins

Casper

Rock Springs

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Newcastle

Yellowstone

National Park

Lusk

Yoder

Hanna

Baggs

Afton

Hulett

Glendo

Casper

Douglas

Bairoil

Rawlins

Laramie

Superior

Sundance

Saratoga

La Barge Guernsey

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Evanston

Cheyenne

Wheatland

Wamsutter

Cokeville

Chugwater

Big Piney

Newcastle

Torrington

Rock River

Pine Bluffs

Green River

Medicine Bow

Fort Laramie

Elk Mountain

Rock Springs

Grand Encampment

0 25 50 100

Miles

0 25 50 100

Kilometers

Wyoming Sage-Grouse RMP 

Amendments Planning Area

o

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF 

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

RMP Amendments Planning Area

Field Office Boundaries

Counties

Railroads

Interstate

State / US Hwy

County Roads

BLM Roads

Cities

Map 9: Transportation System
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2012

- NM

- 056

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)