alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Stratiform zinc-lead deposits in the Drenchwater Creek area, Howard Pass Quadrangle, northwestern Brooks Range, Alaska

By: W. J. Nokleberg**G. R. Winkler

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1209

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Geologic setting of the lead and zinc deposits, Drenchwater Creek area, Howard Pass Quadrangle, Western Brooks Range, Alaska(1978)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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 at the common download problems FAQ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1709

INAM NAJI , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FLUOR FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:19

- cv - 01774

- HMH )

Submitted : December 30, 2022 Decided: January 31, 2023

Before HARRIS and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Inam Naji , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lee Sease Cluverius , Ashley Robertson Parr , Greenville, South Carolina , Susan Pedrick McWilliams , NEXSEN PRU ET, LLC , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1709 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Inam Naji appeals the district court’s order granting a directed verdict for Fluor Federal Services, LLC , (Fluor) on Naji’s ret aliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e to 2000e

- 17 , and the court’s order granting summary judgment to Fluor on Naji’s discrimination claims

. W e have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s judgment

. Naji v. Fluor Fed. Servs., LLC , No. 6:19

- cv - 01774

- HMH (D.S.C. June 4, 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-1709 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### FUTRELLE v. DUKE UNIVERSITY

No. 478P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 244

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         131,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,151,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    968,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,414,200
<PP&E>                                       2,797,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,638,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,984,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,669,700
<BONDS>                                        754,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,569,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,984,300
<SALES>                                      5,318,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,348,100
<CGS>                                        4,142,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,939,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                350,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   122,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            208,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   208,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the six months ended July 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         548,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  769,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,566
<INVENTORY>                                    193,468
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,791,876
<PP&E>                                         831,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                 531,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,268,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,021,837
<BONDS>                                        365,059
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       289,282
<OTHER-SE>                                     592,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,258,550
<SALES>                                      2,244,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,244,385
<CGS>                                        1,916,566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,564,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,542
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (66,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (66,825)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  29,328
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,497)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
§ 1639.6 Considerations relevant to granting or denying claims for Class 2-D. ( a ) The registrant's claim for Class 2-D must include the following: ( 1 ) A statement from a church or religious organization that the registrant is preparing for the ministry under its direction; and
( 2 ) Current certification to the effect that the registrant is satisfactorily pursuing a full-time course of instruction required for entrance into a recognized theological or divinity school in which he has been pre-enrolled; or
( 3 ) Current certification to the effect that the registrant is satisfactorily pursuing a full-time course of instruction in a recognized theological or divinity school; or
( 4 ) Current certification to the effect that the registrant, having completed theological or divinity school, is satisfactorily pursuing a full-time graduate program or is a full-time intern, whose studies are related to and lead toward entry into service as a regular or duly ordained minister of religion.
( b ) A board may require the registrant to obtain from the church, religious organization, or school detailed information in order to determine whether or not the theological or divinity school is in fact a recognized school or whether or not the church or religious organization which is sponsoring the registrant is recognized.
[47 FR 4657, Feb. 1, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 24458, July 1, 1987]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1652

DORIS O. MONROE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-99-584-1) Submitted: October 3, 2001 Decided: October 16, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Kevin Morton, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Regional Chief Counsel, Dennis R. Williams, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, John C. Stoner, Assistant Regional Counsel, Brian C. Huberty, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Doris O. Monroe appeals the district court’s order grantingthe Commissioner’s motion to remand to the Social Security Administration (SSA) pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)(West Supp. 2001). Monroe argues the district court erred in remanding to the SSA because she met listing 9.09 in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (1998) at the time her administrative review became final. She argues the SSA’s subsequent deletion of listing 9.09 should not affect her claim for disability insurance benefits. We review the district court’s remand to the Commissioner for abuse of discretion. See Higgins v. Apfel , 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); Harman v. Apfel , 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000); Nelson v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 799, 802 (7th Cir. 2000). Because we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding, we affirm. We dispense withoral 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
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC



### Michael Pelzer and Pegasus Parachuting Services Complainant, FAA Docket No. 16-16-05 

### v. The State of Michigan Respondent.

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federa l Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules ofPractice). Pursuant to the Rules ofPractice, Section 16.ll(a), the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to March 17, 20 17. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Kevi Direc r, Office ofAirport Compliance and anagement Analysis 

# t o2,01l

)

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 18,2017, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to March 18,2017, for FAA Docket 16-16-05 addressed to : Counsel for Complainants Richard J. Durden Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 27987 Richmond Hill Road Conifer, CO 80433 Respondent Mike Trout Executive Administrator, Office ofAeronautics Michigan Department ofTransportation 2700 Port Lansing Road Lansing, MI 48906

Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance Division (AC0-100)

# ~ Claudia Roberts Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis
### §5505. Monthly pay periods; computation of pay

The pay period for an individual in the service of the United States whose pay is monthly or annual covers one calendar month, and the following rules for division of time and computation of pay for services performed govern:

(1) A month's pay is one-twelfth of a year's pay.

(2) A day's pay is one-thirtieth of a month's pay.

(3) The 31st day of a calendar month is ignored in computing pay, except that one day's pay is forfeited for one day's unauthorized absence on the 31st day of a calendar month.

(4) For each day of the month elapsing before entering the service, one day's pay is deducted from the first month's pay of the individual.

This section does not apply to an employee whose pay is computed under section 5504(b) of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 476.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 84. | June 30, 1906, ch. 3914, §6, 34 Stat. 763.June 30, 1945, ch. 212, §604(c) (2d sentence), 59 Stat. 303. |

Statutes at Large

June 30, 1945, ch. 212, §604(c) (2d sentence), 59 Stat. 303.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS.

WR-94,948-01

WR-94,948-02

EX PARTE SAMUEL CAROTHERS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. D-1-DC-20-300071 & D-1-DC-21-301198

IN THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of two offenses of assault and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment

in each case. Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of

conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

11.07.

Applicant contends that his guilty pleas were involuntary because the plea agreements were

conditioned on his state and federal sentences running concurrently. Based on the record, the trial

court has determined that Applicant is not receiving credit on his federal sentence and that his plea

agreements were conditioned on his state and federal sentences running concurrently.
2

Relief is granted. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). The judgments

in cause numbers D-1-DC-20-00071 and D-1-DC-21-301198 in the 147th District Court of Travis

County are set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Travis County to

answer the charges as set out in the indictments. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench

warrants after the date of this Court’s mandates.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: July 26, 2023

Do not publish
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11268 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
AUDREY VARNER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:97-CR-86-5

- - - - - - - - - - June 30, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Audrey Varner appeals fro m her conviction and sentence for importation of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a),
960(a)(1), and 960(b)(2)(B). She contends that the district court
erred : 1) in its attribution of drug quantity for purposes of assessing rel evant conduct; 2) by denying her request for an adjustment in her offense level based on her minor role in the
offense; and 3) by denying her request for a downward departure
based on her disadvantaged upbringing. We have reviewed the recordNo. 97-11268 -2-
and the briefs of the parties, and conclude that no reversible

error was committed. The district court did not clearly err either in its attribution of the relevant drug quantity or in its denial
of Varner’s request for an adjustment based on her minor role. S ee
United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Buenrostro , 868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir. 1989). Additionally, because the district court’s decision to not depart
from the applicable guidelines range based on Varner’s disadvantag ed upbringing was a correct application of the guidelines, the court’s decision is unreviewable on appeal. S e e
United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, David Keleher, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dynamics ResearchCorporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:August 8, 2005     /s/ David Keleher     David Keleher  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer
50
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KAREN HARRISON,

Respondent

v.

HEALTH NETWORK LABORATORIES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, AND LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, INC.,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 24 MAL 2019

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW

, t his 27 th day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), including its requirement for exhaustion of remedial administrative procedures, provides the exclusive remedy for retaliation claims ostensibly brought under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (“Whistleblower Law”), where the underlying basis for a Whistleblower Law retaliation claim is discrimination

deemed to be unlawful under the PHRA.
# C_2023306EN.01000101.xml

| 30.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11078 – CONTARGO / ZIEGLER / SCHMID / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 306/01)

On 28 June 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11078. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11078. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Second District.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. August Beernaert, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 7,311.

Prosecution under state prohibition act. Defendant convicted. Error to the County Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. Daniel A. Hebei, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 27, 1925.

Francis C. King, for plaintiff in error.

Benjamin S. Bell, State’s Attorney, and Edward L. Eagle, Assistant State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice

Jett delivered the opinion of the court.