alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Alluvial ilmenite placer deposits, central Virginia

By: James Pierson MinardEric R. ForceG.W. Hayes

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp959H

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- 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.
Honeywell101ColumbiaRd.Morristown,NJ07962811112014GeraldWozniakEnvironmentalEngineerSignificantNewAlternativesPolicy(SNAP)ProgramU.S.EPAIStratosphericProtectionDivisionHoneywellRE:IncompleteSNAPSubmissionforR-450A(Solstice®N-13)InRefrigerationandAirConditioningDearMr.Wozniak,HoneywellherebyprovidesadditionalinformationthatwasrequestedintheJuly17th,2014IncompletenessLetterfortheSolstice®N-13SNAPSubmission.Asrequested,achartlistingspecificapplicationsforeachendusealongwithtypicalandmaximumchargesizesforeachapplicationisincluded.Shouldyouhaveanyquestions,pleasefeelfreetocontactmeat973-455-4420.Thankyou,KatarzynaBoberLeader,ProductStewardshipHoneywellSpecificApplicationsandtypicalmaxchargesizesforproposedenduses/R450A{N13)EndUseSpecificApplicationTypicalchargeSizeMaximumChargeSize(kg){kg)RetailfoodConveniencestore3060refrigerationDirectrack/4300400compressor.Variesbytemperature,condensingmedium,pipingarrangementandambientdesign.aircooledclosecoupledexamplecited.Indirectrack/4150250compressoraircooledRemotecondensingunit1012(variesbycapacityandcondensingmedium)aircooled5hpunitcitedRemotecondensingunit3647(variesbycapacityandcondensingmedium)aircooled10hpunitcitedStandaloneself.9*1.2*containeddisplaycaseexamplegivenperdoor*ofdisplaycase.RefrigeratedTranSl!OrtContainers1520Refrigeratedtrailers815Shipholds-varies100500+greatlybyfishery,holdsizeandstoragetemperature.IndustrialProcessRefrigerationVariesgreatlyby50012000application,loadandrefrigerantfeedoptions(DX,flooded&liquidoverfeed)ColdstoragewarehousesVariesgreatlybystorage300410volume,temperatureandsystemconfiguration{dx,floodedSpecificApplicationsandtypicalmaxchargesizesforproposedenduses/R450A(N13)&liquidoverfeed)examplecited-100,000ft3coldstorageDXIndustrialACVariesgreatlybyconstruction,selfcontainedorbuiltup.Builtup40tonsystem8595citedChillersCommercialbuildings,7002000centrifugalIndustrial,80100reciprocating/screwcompressorsvariesbyload,applicationandrefrigerantfeed.DXpackagedaircooled100tonunitcitedCommercialIce10soMachinesVendingMachines0.52ResidentialandLight710CommercialAC&HeatPumesHeatPumeWater13Heaters
Exhibit 32.1


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Robert A. Mariano, Chief Executive Officer of Roundy's, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1)      The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual
                  period ended January 3, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
                  with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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


                                    Dated: March 29, 2004



                                                   /s/ROBERT A. MARIANO
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   Principal Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
August 20, 2015

Strat Aero International

Ph: 1.832.912.4273

Fax; 1.832.553.7975

www.strat-aero.com

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Modification to Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations submitted September 19, 2014

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for your approval of the City of Roswell Coalition's 333 Exemption No. 11265 and the subsequent

amendment that allows the Coalition to fly the DJI SI 000 (11265A granted August 19, 2015).

At this time, on behalf of both the City of Roswell Coalition as the petitioner and for Strat Aero International

Inc. as the sUAS operator for said petitioner, I request an amendment to our exemption to add the DJI Inspire

1 sUAS to our approved aircraft. This specific sUAS has been approved in over 100 granted 333 exemptions

to date, and we willsubmit operating documents to 333exemptions@faa.qov to further clarify safety and

operational features of this aircraft.

This addition to Exemption No. 11265 and the amendment numbered 11265A will not change missions,

training, and/or maintenance performed by City of Roswell Coalition representatives.

Thanks again for your help with approving our request. Ifyou have questions or concerns, please contact Mr.

Jonathan Adams at 518-224-5759.

Best

f

j/egards.

Tanya Renae Compton

Project Management-Administration

Strat Aero International, Inc.

On behalf of

Jonathan E. Adams

Executive Vice President

Strat Aero Intemational, Inc. ~

LONDON NEW YORK HOUSTON
#### In the Matter of Arthur J. Gentile, Respondent, v. John R. Niesley et al., Constituting the Civil Service Commission of the County of Nassau, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act: (a) to annul a determination of the Civil Service Commission of the County of Nassau denying the petitioner’s application to raise the grade which he had received in a competitive examination for the position of “ Principal Construction Inspector ” in the Planning Commission of said county; and (:b) to direct the Planning Commission to appoint him to such position, both Commissions appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 5, 1962, which -granted the petitioner’s application to the extent of “returning the matter” to them “for reconsideration and regrading in accordance with the opinion” rendered by the Special Term. Order reversed on the law and on the facts, without costs; -application denied; and proceeding dismissed without costs. Findings of fact contained or implicit in the decision and opinion at Special Term which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. Petitioner alleged merely that he gave the correct answers to certain essay questions propounded to him, and he attacked the grade which he received. 'The record discloses an honest difference of opinion between him and the Civil Service Commission. When such a difference exists, the courts may not properly intrude and attempt to resolve the difference (see *Matter of Connaughton*v. *Taylor,*285 App. Div. 1169, affd. 1 N Y 2d 864; *Matter of Simone*v. *Conway,*284 App. Div. 95, affd. 308 N. Y. 692). We do not pass upon the question whether sufficiently objective grading procedures have been established (see *Matter of Quinn*v. *Streeter,*175 Mise. 932; of. *Matter of Fink*v. *Fimegan,*270 N. Y. 356; *Matter of Weissbard*v. *Kaplan,*25 Mise 2d 560). Beldock, P, J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [35 Misc 2d 1005.]
TS-EMLA10/20/30 

Attachment #6

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 3 

Environmental Release and Disposal Information on the New Chemical Substance 

at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing
190 So. 126

#### LEE et al. v. PERKINS.

No. 34791.

May 29, 1939.

Jackson & Mayer, of Shreveport, for appellants.

John T. Campbell, of Minden, for appellee.

ODOM, Justice.

Plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant on August 19, 1936, to cancel an oil, gas, and mineral lease, and a mineral deed, executed in their names in favor of defendant by one claiming to be their agent but who was alleged to have had no such authority. Subsequently, in a supplemental petition, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, Perkins, to whom the lease had been granted, had assigned it to a third person for a consideration of $1200, and they prayed for judgment against defendant for the said amount.

The case was tried on February 19, 1937, and judgment was rendered rejecting plaintiffs’ demands and dismissing their suit. They appealed.

Appellants in their motion to remand alleged that the transfer or assignment by *1051the defendant- of the lease during the pendency, of. the suit was a sale of a litigious right, and that they were entitled to the privilege granted, by Article 2652 of the Revised Civil Cpde, which provides: “He against whom a litigious right has been transferred, may get himself released by paying to the transferree the real price of the transfer, together with the interest from its date.”

They prayed that the case be remanded to the district court in order that they may amend their pleadings, file in evidence the transfers above described, and deposit in the registry of the court the amounts paid to the defendant by the transferrees in order that they may be released from the claims of the defendant.

In the case of Langston v. Shaw et al., 147 La. 644, 85 So. 624, 625, where the identical situation was. presented, defendants opposed the motion to remand, on the ground that the provisions of the Code with reference to the purchase of litigious rights applied solely to sales made by plaintiffs and not by defendants, and were intended as a protection to defendants only. In disposing of the motion to remand, wé said: “The articles of the Code, dealing with the purchase of a litigious right, do not seem to be confined to either side to a lawsuit.”

That case is on all fours with this one. See also Smith et al. v. Cook, 189 La. 632, 180 So. 469.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that •this case be, and the .same is hereby, remanded to the lower court for the purposes stated in the motion to remand, all costs to await the final decision of the case.

FOURNET, J., absent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Humbert, Appellant.

Motion to prosecute appeal as a poor person, and for other relief, denied on the ground that the papers fail to show merit to the appeal. Memorandum: The conviction herein resulted from an indictment properly returned by a Grand Jury, and defendant cannot resort to *coram nobis*to review matters which occurred before the finding of the indictment. (See *People ex rel. Hirschberg*v. *Close,*1 A D 2d 961, affd. 1 N Y 2d 258.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Yanni, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*application by defendant to vacate his sentence as a second felony offender and to be resentenced as a first felony offender under a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered September 12, 1956, upon his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the third degree unarmed, defendant appeals from the order of said court, dated April 6,1960, denying his application. Defendant contends that the first offense should not be deemed to be a felony in this State. His conviction for such offense was based on his plea of guilty to an Alaska indictment which alleged *944the commission of a felony according to New York law. His position now' is that the said Alaska indictment was subject to amendment, and that the Alaska statute included a basis for felony conviction which in New York would support conviction of only a misdemeanor. Order affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 11.1

                              CYANOTECH CORPORATION

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                          Fiscal years ended March 31,




                                                                                

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                           1997          1996            1995                           
                                        -----------   -----------    -----------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>            <C>        
Net Income                              $ 4,159,000   $ 2,509,000    $   769,000
Less: requirement
for preferred stock dividends                --            --             60,600
                                        -----------   -----------    -----------
Net income available to common          $ 4,159,000   $ 2,509,000    $   708,400  
stockholders                            -----------   -----------    -----------
                                        -----------   -----------    -----------
                                                                     
Earnings per Share: (1)
-----------------------
Weighted Average Common Shares 
Outstanding                              12,583,000     9,833,000      8,894,000                                                    

Weighted Average Common Equivalent 
Shares Outstanding                        4,015,000     4,715,000      4,695,000
                                        -----------   -----------    -----------
Weighted Average Common and Common        
Equivalent Shares Outstanding            16,598,000    14,548,000     13,589,000
                                        -----------    -----------   -----------
                                        -----------    -----------   -----------                    
Net Income per Common and Common             $ 0.25        $ 0.17         $ 0.05 
Equivalent Shares                       -----------    -----------   -----------  
                                        -----------    -----------   -----------  
</TABLE>

(1)      There was no difference  between the  computation of earnings per share
         on a primary versus fully-diluted basis; accordingly, dual presentation
         is not required.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

APPOINTMENT TO THE 

PENNSYLVANIA LAWYERS FUND FOR 

CLIENT SECURITY BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 86

CLIENT SECURITY APPOINTMENT 

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2024, Douglas E. Ress, Esquire, Philadelphia, 

is hereby appointed as a member of the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security 

Board of Trustees for a term of three years, commencing April 1, 2024.
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 1 0

- 00 025

- CV

______________________________

HUBERT MCCURLEY, INDIVIDUALLY

, D/B/A STAN’S BACKHOE SERVICE, INC., AND

RITA MCCURLEY, INDIVIDUALLY , Appellant s

V.

CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION , Appellee

On Appeal from the 173rd Judicial District Court

Henderson County, T exas

Trial Court No. 2008A

- 490

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

A ppellants, Hubert McCurley, Individually

, d/b/a Stan’s Backhoe Service, Inc., and Rita

McCurley, Individually, have filed with this Court a motion to dismiss the pending appeal in this

matter. 1 Appellants represent to this Court that the parties have reac hed a full and final

settlement. In such a case, no real controversy exists, and in the absence of a controversy, the

appeal is moot.

We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: June 1 5 , 2010

Date Decided: June 1 6 , 2010

1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).
#### § 1633.6 Consideration of classes.

Claims of a registrant will be considered in inverse order of the listing of the classes below. When grounds are established to place a registrant in one or more of the classes listed in the following table, the registrant shall be classified in the lowest class for which he is determined to be eligible, with Class 1-A-O considered the highest class and Class 1-H considered the lowest class, according to the following table:

Class 1-A-O: Conscientious Objector Available for Noncombatant Military Service Only.

Class 1-O: Conscientious Objector to all Military Service.

Class 1-O-S: Conscientious Objector to all Military Service (Separated).

Class 2-D: Registrant Deferred Because of Study Preparing for the Ministry.

Class 3-A: Registrant Deferred Because of Hardship to Dependents.

Class 3-A-S: Registrant Deferred Because of Hardship to Dependents (Separated).

Class 4-D: Minister of Religion.

Class 1-D-D: Deferment for Certain Members of a Reserve Component or Student Taking Military Training.

Class 4-B: Official Deferred by Law.

Class 4-C: Alien or Dual National.

Class 4-G: Registrant Exempted From Service Because of the Death of his Parent or Sibling While Serving in the Armed Forces or Whose Parent or Sibling is in a Captured or Missing in Action Status.

Class 4-A: Registrant Who Has Completed Military Service.

Class 4-A-A: Registrant Who Has Performed Military Service For a Foreign Nation.

Class 4-W: Registrant Who Has Completed Alternative Service in Lieu of Induction.

Class 1-D-E: Exemption of Certain Members of a Reserve Component or Student Taking Military Training.

Class 1-C: Member of the Armed Forces of the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Public Health Service.

Class 1-W: Conscientious Objector Ordered to Perform Alternative Service in Lieu of Induction.

Class 4-T: Treaty Alien.

Class 4-F-: Registrant Not Acceptable for Military Service.

Class 1-H: Registrant Not Subject to Processing for Induction.

[52 FR 24457, July 1, 1987]
EXHIBIT 3(i).2

                          ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                                NOXSO CORPORATION

      (pursuant to Section 13.1-710 of the Virginia Stock Corporation Act)

         NOXSO CORPORATION (hereinafter the "Corporation") , a corporation
organized and existing under Section 13.1-618 of the Virginia Stock Corporation
Act, does hereby certify as follows:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation has adopted at
the December 9, 1991 meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation the
following resolution setting forth the proposed amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation of the Corporation:

         RESOLVED, that the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation be
amended by replacing ARTICLE THIRD thereof in its entirety and substituting
therefor the following:

         "The total authorized capital stock of the Corporation shall consist of
         20,000,000 shares, which shall be classified as common stock of the par
         value of $.01 per share."

         SECOND: That the aforesaid resolution was proposed by the Board of
Directors and submitted to the shareholders at the Corporation's 1991 Annual
Meeting of Shareholders held on March 30, 1992 (following proper notice given to
the shareholder in accordance with the Provisions of Section 13.1-658 of the
Virginia Stock Corporation Act), at which meeting the holders of 2,797,281
shares (more than two-thirds) of the 3,298,096 total number of outstanding
shares of Common Stock of the Corporation entitled to vote thereon, voted in
favor of adoption of the aforesaid resolution, which amount was sufficient for
the adoption thereof.

         THIRD: That this Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation has been
duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.1-707 of the
Virginia Stock Corporation Act.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Noxso Corporation has cause these Articles of
Amendment to be executed on this 30th day of March, 1992, in the name of the
Corporation by its President and its Secretary who declare under the penalty of
perjury that the facts herein stated are true.

                                                    NOXSO CORPORATION


                                                    By:  /s/ Lewis G. Neal
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Lewis G. Neal, President

Attest:


By: /s/ John L. Haslbeck
   ---------------------------------
   John L. Haslbeck, Secretary
Fires and Smoke | ARSET http://arset.gsfc.nasa.gov/airquality/applications/fires-and-smoke

1 of 2 9/16/2015 10:10 AM
Last updated: September 1

NASA Official: Kenneth Pic

Webmaster: Susannah Pea

Curator: Ana Prados

Fires and Smoke | ARSET http://arset.gsfc.nasa.gov/airquality/applications/fires-and-smoke

2 of 2 9/16/2015 10:10 AM
Exhibit 10.27


 


BILL OF SALE


 


WITNESSETH: THAT EAST KANSAS AGRI-ENERGY, L.L.C. a Kansas limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas (“Seller”), for and in
consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has BARGAINED and SOLD, and by
these presents does now GRANT and CONVEY, unto the CITY OF GARNETT, KANSAS,
a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Kansas (“Buyer”), and its successors and assigns, all of its right, title and
interest, if any, in and to the machinery and equipment and other personal
property, generally described in the attachment hereto, and constituting the “Project
Equipment,” as defined in the Lease Agreement dated as of December 1, 2005 (the
“Lease Agreement”), between the Seller and the Buyer.


 


TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto Buyer, its successors and assigns, subject however to
the terms of the Lease Agreement and those liens and/or encumbrances as therein
set forth.


 


The
property is being conveyed “as is,” “where is” and “with all faults” as of the
date of this Bill of Sale, without any representation or warranty whatsoever as
to its condition, fitness for any particular purpose, merchantability, or any
other warranty, express or implied.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller has caused this Bill of Sale to be executed in its corporate
name by its duly authorized officer this 20th day of December, 2005.


 


	
   

  	
  EAST
  KANSAS AGRI-ENERGY, L.L.C.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  William R. Pracht

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  William R. Pracht

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chairman and President