alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts

Title | List of Figures | Conversion Factors | Abstract | Introduction | Setting | Methods | Bathymetry | Sidescan Sonar | Seismic Profiles | Sediments | Bottom Photography | Data Catalog | Summary | Acknowledgments | References Cited | Contacts

Figure 3. Regional paleogeographic map showing the extent of the       Laurentide ice sheet over Cape Cod and the islands about 20–22 thousand       years ago (ka). 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig3.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:30:02 EDT
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E.
Skowronski, President of the Company, certify that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  |  |                         
|----------------- |  | ------------------------
|February 15, 2008 |  | /s/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI
|                  |  | Walter E. Skowronski    
|                  |  | President               



45
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Calprop Corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: December 10, 2004

                                                   /s/ Victor Zaccaglin
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Chairman of the Board
                                                   Victor Zaccaglin
                                                   Chairman of the Board
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Calprop Corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: December 10, 2004

                                                   /s/ Henry Nierodzik
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Henry Nierodzik
                                                   Chief Accounting Officer
2401.603-2 Selection. ( a ) In selecting Contracting Officers, appointing authorities shall consider the experience, education, training, business acumen, judgment, character, reputation, and ethics of the individual to be appointed. Appointing authorities shall also consider the size and complexity of contracts the individual will be required to execute or administer, and any other limitations on the scope of the authority to be exercised.
( b ) Individuals appointed to a position having Contracting Officer authority, and whose primary duties are performed as a Contracting Officer, other than contracting authority limited to simplified acquisition procedures, shall meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) The education and specialized experience commensurate with the grade of the appointee as set forth in the qualification standards for the GS-1102 occupational series developed by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under the authority of 41 U.S.C. 433, and two years of experience performing contracting, procurement, or purchasing operations in a government or commercial procurement office. Alternately, where appointment of a Contracting Officer involves a specialized procurement field, experience in that field may be considered as a criterion for appointment.
( 2 ) Successful completion of contracting-related training as prescribed by the Senior Procurement Executive.
( c ) The Senior Procurement Executive may waive education and specialized experience requirements as provided for in the qualification standards developed by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under the authority of 41 U.S.C. 433.
[71 FR 2434, Jan. 13, 2006]
225.7900 Scope of subpart. This subpart implements— ( a ) Section 890(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181); and
( b ) The requirements regarding export control of Title I of the Security Cooperation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-266); the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (the U.S.-Australia DTC Treaty); and the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (the U.S.-U.K. DTC Treaty). See *PGI 225.7902* for additional information.
2116.270-1 Contract clauses. ( a ) The clause at 2152.216-70 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts when a risk charge is negotiated.
( b ) The clause at 2152.216-71 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts when a service charge is negotiated.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

A4A Robert Ireland 6/ 1/2015 Issuance ofNNFR 

Other/ Additional Information:
June 3, 1975.

M. P. No. 1986.

#### State *v.*Robert G. Cole.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Judith Romney Wegner,*
      *958Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent. *Brian J. Sarault,*for defendant-petitioner.

*957Motion of State to vacate a previous order of court, which provided for an evidentiary hearing in the Superior Court, is granted.
204.1671 Order of application for modifications. ( a ) Circumstances may exist in which the numeric order of the modifications to a contract is not the order in which the changes to the contract actually take effect.
( b ) In order to determine the sequence of modifications to a contract or order, the modifications will be applied in the following order— ( 1 ) Modifications will be applied in order of the effective date on the modification;
( 2 ) In the event of two or more modifications with the same effective date, modifications will be applied in signature date order; and
( 3 ) In the event of two or more modifications with the same effective date and the same signature date, procuring contracting office modifications will be applied in numeric order, followed by contract administration office modifications in numeric order.
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:17
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:18
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:19
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:20
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:21
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:22
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:23
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:24
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:25
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:26
Case: 1:12-cv-04453 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:27
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 86 Filed: 10/18/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:444
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 86 Filed: 10/18/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:445
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 86 Filed: 10/18/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:446
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 86 Filed: 10/18/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:447
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 86 Filed: 10/18/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:448
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/2/2015 11:28:06 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16325) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Planof ACR Group, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-42701) pertaining to the registration of 2,411,667 shares of common stock of ACR Group, Inc., of our report dated May 13, 2004 (except for Notes 1, 4 and 6 as to which the date isOctober 11, 2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements, as amended, and schedule of ACR Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 28, 2005. 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

May 31, 2005 

**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

ACR Group, Inc. 

Houston, Texas 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(No. 333-16325) and Form S-3 (No. 333-42701) of ACR Group, Inc of our report dated May 23, 2005, relating to the Consolidated Financial Statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

May 31, 2005
#### 1319.202 Specific policies.

Procurement actions valued above $100,000 will be reviewed by the Director, OSDBU, or designee for the purpose of making recommendations for solicitation/award under FAR Part 19.
227.7102-2 Rights in technical data. ( a ) The clause at 252.227-7015, Technical Data—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, provides the Government specific license rights in technical data pertaining to commercial products, commercial services, or commercial processes. DoD may use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose data only within the Government. The data may not be used to manufacture additional quantities of the commercial products and, except for emergency repair or overhaul and for covered Government support contractors, may not be released or disclosed to, or used by, third parties without the contractor's written permission. Those restrictions do not apply to the technical data described in 227.7102-1(a).
( b ) If additional rights are needed, contracting activities must negotiate with the contractor to determine if there are acceptable terms for transferring such rights. The specific additional rights granted to the Government shall be enumerated in a license agreement made part of the contract.
[56 FR 36389, July 31, 1991, as amended at 76 FR 11367, Mar. 2, 2011; 88 FR 6585, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### 207.7003 Limitation.

For noncompetitive acquisitions, the acquisition of additional quantities is limited to not more than 10 percent of the quantity approved in the justification and approval prepared in accordance with FAR part 6 for the acquisition of the end item.
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 60 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2018 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Barbara M. Barrett as 

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expira7 tion of the term of Barbara M. Barrett of Arizona on Jan8 uary 10, 2019, is filled by the reappointment of the incum9 bent. The reappointment is for a term of 6 years, beginVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:51 May 22, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ60.RFH SJ60

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 60 RFH 

1 ning on the later of January 11, 2019, or the date of the 

2 enactment of this joint resolution. 

Passed the Senate May 17, 2018. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Additional Proposed PSD

Permit Amendment and

Related Documents (Updated September 30, 2016)

Final PSD Permit Decision for the MCU Facility
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 15 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the final rule submitted by the Director of the Bureau 

of Land Management relating to resource management planning. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. CRAPO, 

Mr. DAINES, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. 

HELLER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. SASSE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted 

by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 

relating to resource management planning. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the final rule submitted by the 

4 Director of the Bureau of Land Management relating to 

5 resource management planning (81 Fed. Reg. 89580 (DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:35 Jan 31, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ15.IS SJ15

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 15 IS 

1 cember 12, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or 

2 effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Case: 1:12-cv-03832 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:73
#### FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v. HOFFMAN HOUSE et al.

(Supreme Court,.Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by the Farmers’ Loan &. Trust Company against Hoffman House and others.

D. McClure, for appellants. J. F. Horan, for respondent Farmers’ Loan & Trust co. C. E. Hughes, for respondent Hoffman House.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $16‘ costs and disbursements.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however,

for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 26, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRIS HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-2118

(D.C. No. 1:05-CR-02365-MV-1)

(D.N.M)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

 

Defendant Chris Harris entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of

possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance

containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(a)(iii). On appeal,

Defendant argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because

probation and police officers violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment when

they entered his apartment and searched him and the apartment without a warrant or

reasonable suspicion.

Because the parties are familiar with the historical facts of this case, we do not
2

recite them here. Having reviewed the record and considered the briefs and oral

arguments of the parties, we are convinced the district court did not err in denying

Defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant’s order of probation provided for

warrantless searches of his person, residence, and property by a probation officer

with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a probation violation. The district

court properly found the probation and police officers had reasonable suspicion to

enter and search Defendant’s apartment and his person in accordance with

Defendant’s order of probation based on (1) information from two independent

confidential informants that Defendant was dealing drugs, in addition to information

from a third independent confidential informant who participated in a controlled buy

from Defendant; (2) one officer’s knowledge of Defendant’s history of possessing

and illegally discharging a firearm; and (3) highly suspicious and evasive behavior

of Defendant and the two men with him in his apartment, visible to the officers from

outside. These facts provided the officers with a particularized and objective basis

for suspecting criminal activity, justifying their entry and search in accordance with

Defendant’s order of probation. See United States v. Trujillo, 404 F.3d 1238, 1244

(10th Cir. 2005) (“Reasonable suspicion requires only a particularized and objective

basis for suspecting criminal activity . . . .”).
3

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress is

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

United States Circuit Judge
Case: 1:12-cv-01637 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01637 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-01637 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-01637 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-01637 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-01637 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-01637 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
#### 223.370 Safety precautions for ammunition and explosives.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARIA LUIS, )

LUCY GOMEZ, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) 12 CV 2922

)

SMITH PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES, LTD. )

SMITH REO PROPERTIES )

COYA SMITH, )

ANDY HORN, )

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Coya Smith

Andy Horn

Smith Partners & Associates

5002 Main Street Suite 4 

Downers Grove, IL 60515 

Fax 630.810.9782

info@smithreo.com

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on May 2, 2012, at 9:30 am, I will appear before the 

Honorable Gary Feinerman and present the attached Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order, 

and Preliminary Injunction, which is hereby served upon you.

s/Jonathan Lubin

Jonathan Lubin

39 S. LaSalle Street

Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60603

(773) 954-2608

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jonathan Lubin, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused a copy of the above described to 

be served upon the above listed by sending it by fax, to the above listed number, and by e-mail, to 

the above listed e-mail address, before 5:00pm on May 1, 2012, with the exception of Exhibit A, 

which cannot be sent by Fax due to it being an Audio/Video file. Exhibit A will be attached or 

otherwise sent through e-mail concurrently with the service of the above described. 

s/Jonathan Lubin

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:22
#### Simmons *et al. v.*Atlanta Telephone and Telegraph Company *et al.;*and *vice versa.*

February 25, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior court. February 5, 1912.

*Anderson, Felder, Rountree é Wilson,*for plaintiffs.

*Hardeman, Jones, Park & Johnston,*for defendants.

Per Curiam.

E The facts set up by the defendants in the present case, and to show which they introduced evidence, are such as to distinguish it from *Morel*v. *Hoge,*130 *Ga.*625 (61 S. E. 487, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1136, 14 Ann. Cas. 935); and it can not be declared as matter of law that the plaintiffs were entitled to an interlocutory injunction under the ruling there made.

2. As to material facts there was conflict in the evidence, and the presiding judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant the injunction for which the plaintiffs prayed.

3. The assignment of error on the admission in evidence of a master’s report was not referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiffs in error, and will be treated as abandoned.

4. The presiding judge, in connection with his order denying an interlocutory injunction, filed an opinion, briefly discussing his views of the case. In one clause' of it he said: “This voting power, this so-called voting trust, was limited as to time, and its efficacy would terminate'whenever the debt shall be paid to the Stromberg Company.” In view of the question then to be determined, and the context, this was not a final adjudication of such fact, but a mere discussion, leading-up to the order denying the injunction.

*Judgment affirmed on the mam hill of exceptions. Gross-hill of exceptions dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*