alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1414-C

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Predevelopment equivalent freshwater head in Mississippian rocks PLATE 2
‘Signor, D.C. and others, 1996, Ge logy and simulation jf sea state flow cantons incon soit st in Cotocoaus ‘and older

106° 102°

EXPLANATION

1,000 PREDEVELOPMENT EQUIVALENT FRESHWATER-HEAD CONTOUR—Shows altitude at
‘which water level would have stood in tightly cased wells penetrating center line of
Mississippian rocks if the water in the wells had a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter.
Interval, in feet, is variable. Datum is sea level

LIMIT OF MISSISSIPPIAN ROCKS

BOUNDARY OF STUDY AREA

e150 WELL CONTROL POINT—Number Is altitude, In feet, at which water level would have stood
Ina tightly cased well penetrating Mississippian rocks. Datum Is sea level

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

50 oO 50 100 150 200 MILES

50. i) 50. 100 150 200 250 KILOMETRES
a 3

i

TTT OALIAS [1

xe SS i ae are atl an
Ab Ua ate
A

st

MARION!

a
Ag ae a I
gageison! ‘snes a
ve Sfp)

ao \ MAEON ©
at

ig wal
; Z

eh dara)
wagoeen;| LL Ne

1M Ti +

s/ pact
1 x Oynisrne
k ROOKS

Pruoress |!
'

LE 1X __= L mS

wt Rite [3a
ay Ht pe I
sf pesore [MotLey [corre i
Se —_
in ao i
H <
eae | 4 \
H ARCHER. ‘ii rap| SON CALHOUN
98°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

a, MAP SHOWING PREDEVELOPMENT EQUIVALENT FRESHWATER HEAD IN MISSISSIPPIAN ROCKS (UPPER UNIT IN THE WESTERN
INTERIOR PLAINS AQUIFER SYSTEM AND SPRINGFIELD PLATEAU AQUIFER IN THE OZARK PLATEAUS AQUIFER SYSTEM)
IN PARTS OF ARKANSAS, COLORADO, KANSAS, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AND WYOMING

By
Donald C. Signor, John O. Helgesen, Donald G. Jorgensen, and Robert B. Leonard
1996
### SUBCHAPTER VI—CHARGE FOR INSPECTION
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We have issued our reports dated June 7, 2006, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal controls over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of UQMTechnologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2006. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statementsof UQM Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 003-23113, File No. 33-24071,File No. 033-34612, File No. 033-34613, File No. 033-35055, File No. 033-41325, FileNo. 033-47454, File No. 033-64852, File No. 033-81430, File No. 033-92288,File No. 333-101371, File No. 333-129241, and File No. 333-129251), andForms S-3 (File Nos. 033-61166, 033-63399, 333-01919, 333-13883, 333-44597,333-23843, 333-50393, 333-52861, 333-67313, 333-78525, 333-75520 and 333-126946). 

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

 

 

Denver, Colorado

June 7, 2006
Exhibit 23.3

 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS

 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Pre-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form F-3 (File No. 333-118932) of our report dated March 11, 2004, except for Note 36, as to which the date is August 9, 2004, relating to the financial statements of Deutsche Telekom AG, which appears in the Current Report on Form 6-K of Deutsche Telekom AG dated September 2004. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.

 January 12, 2005

 

| Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG Wirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaft Stuttgart      |                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                                                                                              |                           |
| (Prof. Dr. Pfitzer)    Wirtschaftspruefer                                                         | (Hollweg) Wirtschaftspruefer   |
|                                                                                              |                           |
| PwC Deutsche Revision     Aktiengesellschaft    WirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaftFrankfurt am Main |                           |
|                                                                                              |                           |
| (Frings)     Wirtschaftspruefer                                                                   | (Menke)     Wirtschaftspruefer |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6654
ALVIN O. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus APRIL RYDER; DOCTOR REESE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-575-7) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 6, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin O. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Eckert Phillips, Standardsville, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alvin O. Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Washington v. Ryder , No. CA-02-575-7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****National Observer Program FY... annual report.**
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.13/2-5:

Item Number:0208-C-24 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001041694
 
2005| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013
 
March 30, 2020
II 

Calendar No. 157 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 577 

[Report No. 115–120] 

To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, to include 

a link to a 100 word plain language summary of the proposed rule. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2017 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Mr. RISCH, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 28, 2017 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, with an amendment 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, 

to include a link to a 100 word plain language summary 

of the proposed rule. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Account5 ability Through Transparency Act of 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 577 RS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100 WORD SUMMARY TO 

2 REGULATIONS.GOV. 

3 Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 

8 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(4) the Internet address of a summary of not 

12 more than 100 words in length of the proposed rule, 

13 in plain language, that shall be posted on the Inter14 net website under section 206(d) of the E-Govern15 ment Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly 

16 known as regulations.gov).’’. 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 157 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 577 

[Report No. 115–120] 

A BILL 

To require each agency, in providing notice of a 

plain language summary of the proposed rule. rule making, to include a link to a 100 word 

JUNE 28, 2017 

Reported with an amendment 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Escalade,
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 3, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert J. Keller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|                        |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/ Robert J. Keller    |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  | 
|November 5, 2009        |  |  | 

---
#### ROBERTS v. SWAIN

No. 412P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 712

Petition by defendants for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1997.
### §1509. Exemption of indemnities from levy

Claims for indemnities under this subchapter shall not be liable to attachment, levy, garnishment, or any other legal process before payment to the insured or to deduction on account of the indebtedness of the insured or the estate of the insured to the United States except claims of the United States or the Corporation arising under this subchapter.

(Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title V, §509, 52 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 103–354, title I, §115(c), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3204; Pub. L. 110–234, title XII, §12033(c)(2)(B), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1405; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XII, §12033(c)(2)(B), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2167.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–246, §12033(c)(2)(B), substituted "this subchapter" for "this chapter" in two places.

1994—Pub. L. 103–354 substituted "or the estate of the insured" for "or his estate".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–354 effective Oct. 13, 1994, and applicable to provision of crop insurance under Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) beginning with 1995 crop year, with such Act, as in effect on the day before Oct. 13, 1994, to continue to apply with respect to 1994 crop year, see section 120 of Pub. L. 103–354, set out as a note under section 1502 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Administration of program of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation transferred to Secretary of Agriculture by 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §501, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7877, 60 Stat. 1100. See note set out under section 1503 of this title.

Wartime consolidation of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation into Agricultural Conservation and Adjustment Administration, see note set out under section 1503 of this title.
#### § 651.38 Existing environmental assessments.

EAs are dynamic documents. To ensure that the described setting, actions, and effects remain substantially accurate, the proponent or installation Environmental Officer is encouraged to periodically review existing documentation that is still relevant or supporting current action. If an action is not yet completed, substantial changes in the proposed action may require supplementation, as specified in § 651.5 (g).
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10753 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. GALEN J WADE Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-415-8 Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Galen J. Wade has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Wade has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and theAPPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
### SUBCHAPTER II—DAIRY RESEARCH PROGRAM
2 So.2d 189

#### In re SUBURBAN COAST REALTY CO., Inc., et al.

No. 36142.

April 28, 1941.

Fred A. Middleton, of New Orleans, for relators.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., J. Bernard Cocke, Dist. Atty., of New Orleans, and W. C. Perrault, Asst. Atty. Gen. (James J. Morrison and L. F. Wingerter, both of New Orleans, of counsel), for respondents.

PONDER, Justice.

This is a companion case to In re Louisiana Coastal Lands, Inc., et al., 2 So.2d 184.1 The issues and facts in both cases are identical and the only difference between them is that different defendants are involved.

For the reasons assigned in In re Louisiana Coastal Lands, Inc., et al., 2 So.2d 184.1 handed down this day, this cause is remanded to the lower court in order that, the subpoena duc$s tecum may be modified consistant with the views therein expressed.

1

197 La. 701.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice

(concurring).

I concur in the opinion that the judge of. the criminal district court should modify his order to produce the books and records of the corporation, so as to make the order a reasonable one; but, inasmuch as this investigation is in the nature of a-criminal proceeding, being conducted under the provisions of article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not consider the articles of the Code of Practice, relating to writs of subpoena duces tecum, as being applicable to this case.
### Clay mineralogy of Devonian shales in the Appalachian Basin

By: J.W. HostermanS.I. Whitlow

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1298

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             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.
Exhibit 31.2
                                  Certification
                Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (A separate certification is required for each officer)

I, Olivier Meisel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BNP U.S. Funding
L.L.C.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material 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
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included 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 periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within these entities, particularly
during the period in which the report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based upon such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 16, 2005

                                                  /s/ Olivier Meisel
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Title: President and Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 14, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery and grand larceny (both in the first degree) and of assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. After the selection of the jury, during which defendant was represented by retained counsel, the defendant discharged his counsel. Although the jury had already been selected, the court adjourned the case several times for a total of a week to enable defendant’s family to obtain another attorney, but they were unable to do so. The court thereupon offered to assign counsel, but defendant refused to accept the counsel suggested by the court. The trial proceeded with defendant acting as his own counsel. Under the circumstances, the defendant waived his right to counsel and was not deprieved of a fair trial *(People*v. *Gordon,*8 A D 2d 835, affd. 7 N Y 2d 942, remittitur amd. 7 N Y 2d 1047, cert. den. 363 U. S. 853; *People*v. *Bai,*7 N Y 2d 152). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.801 Matters to be considered in discharge review. In the process of its review of discharges, the NDRB shall examine available records and pertinent regulations of the Department of the Navy, together with such information as may be presented by the applicant and/or representative, which will normally include: ( a ) The application for discharge review;
( b ) Statements, affidavits or documentation, if any, accompanying the application or presented during hearings;
( c ) Testimony, if any, presented during hearings;
( d ) Service and health records;
( e ) A brief of pertinent facts extracted from the service and health records, prepared by the NDRB recorder.
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.601 General.

The NDRB is a component of the Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards and has its offices located in the NCR. The NDRB conducts documentary reviews and personal appearance reviews in the NCR and, on a traveling basis, at selected sites within the 48 contiguous states. Regional site selection is predicated on the number of pending applications accumulated from a given geographical area and the resources available to support distant personal appearance reviews. The NDRB does not maintain facilities other than at its NCR offices. The primary sites of NCR are: Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; and San Francisco, CA.

[50 FR 10943, Mar. 19, 1985, as amended at 75 FR 747, Jan. 6, 2010]
### §1444–1. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §103A, as added Dec. 23, 1985, Pub. L. 99–198, title V, §501, 99 Stat. 1407; amended Mar. 20, 1986, Pub. L. 99–260, §2(c), 100 Stat. 46; May 27, 1987, Pub. L. 100–45, §4, 101 Stat. 319; Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100–203, title I, §§1101(c), 1102(c), 1113(c), 101 Stat. 1330–1, 1330–3, 1330–9, related to loan rates, target prices, disaster payments, acreage limitation program, and land diversion. See Effective and Termination Dates note below.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective and Termination Dates

Pub. L. 99–198, title V, §501, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1407, provided that this section is effective only for the 1986 through 1990 crops of upland cotton.
### §1926–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title VII, §702, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1108

Section, Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2322, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4010; Pub. L. 102–237, title VII, §702(f), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1880; Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §235(b)(6), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3222, related to water and waste facility financing, including provisions relating to authority, limitation, priority, coordination, terms, private sector capital, appropriations, repayment, full use, and replenishment of water and waste facility fund.