alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Publications

Table 1. Summary of releases of marked subyearling chinook salmon, Tanner Creek vs. midstream Columbia River, 1991.

aBrand codes: 1st and 2nd characters, RD = right dorsal position; 3rd character is the band symbol; 4th character is brand rotation where 2 = symbol rotated clockwise 90° from upright position and 4 = symbol rotated clockwise 270° from upright position.bTotal fish marked; branded, tagged, and adipose fin clipped (less observed prerelease mortality and fish retained for tag loss evaluation).cEstimated number of fish released without coded-wire tags (Appendix Table A2).dEstimated number of fish released with coded-wire tags.eAG D1 D2 = Agency code, Data 1 code, Data 2 code. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Table of Contents
### Goals, opportunities, and priorities for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

By: Robert A. PageD. M. Boore**R.C. BucknamW.R. Thatcher

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1079

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (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.
#### 25.801 General.

Treaties and agreements between the United States and foreign governments affect the evaluation of offers from foreign entities and the performance of contracts in foreign countries.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
              CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

          Calculation of Primary Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share and
          Fully Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share (unaudited)
                       (in thousands, except per share)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                   Three Months Ended
                                                                        March 31,
                                                           ------------------------------------
                                                                 1997               1996
                                                           -----------------  -----------------
<S>                                                        <C>                <C> 
 Primary earnings (loss) per common share:
   Net Income (Loss) Applicable to Common Stock             $(37,083)          $ 83,649
                                                            ================   ================


   Average number of common shares outstanding                95,590             95,505
                                                            ================   ================


   Per share                                                  ($0.39)             $0.88
                                                            ================   ================


 Fully diluted earnings (loss) per common share: (1)
   Net Income (Loss) Applicable to Common Stock             $(37,083)          $ 83,649

   Add income effect, assuming conversion of
     dilutive convertible securities                              ---                ---
                                                           -----------------  -----------------

   Net income (loss) on a fully diluted basis               $(37,083)          $ 83,649
                                                            ================   ================


   Average number of common shares outstanding                95,590             95,505

   Add common share effect, assuming conversion
     of dilutive convertible securities                           ---                ---
                                                           -----------------  -----------------
   Average number of common shares outstanding
     on a fully diluted basis                                 95,590             95,505
                                                            ================   ================


   Per share                                                $   (.39)          $    .88
                                                            ================   ================
</TABLE> 

----------
 NOTE:

 (1) The computation of fully diluted earnings per common share assumes that the
     average number of common shares outstanding during the period is increased
     by the conversion of securities having a dilutive effect, and that net
     income applicable to common stock is increased by dividends and after-tax
     interest on such securities.
#### 2433.102 General.
Atrazine: Atrazine:Frequency of Monitoring in CWS Frequency of Monitoring in CWS

Melanie Biscoe Melanie Biscoe to: dan.campbell 12/14/2010 12:00 PM

Dear Dan,

OPP does not intend to request any changes to the frequency of sampling in these systems in 2011. 

Although OPP is not requesting any changes to the sampling frequency in CWSs for 2011, we certainly 

would not oppose any voluntary action Syngenta may take in 2011 to shorten the times between sampling 

periods in select CWS to inform work on the issue of sampling frequency . As such, OPP would leave it to 

Syngenta's discretion to determine how and in which CWSs such voluntary work would be conducted .

Thanks very much for your willingness to discuss such measures with the Agency . Should Syngenta 

shorten sampling timeframes in a voluntary effort to refine issues surrounding sampling frequency , OPP 

would look forward to seeing the findings.

Best Regards,

Melanie Biscoe

Chemical Review Manager

Risk Management and Implementation Branch IV (RMIB IV)

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD)

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)

biscoe.melanie@epa.gov

703-305-7106
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2016461EN.01003301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 461/33 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8262 — Fosun International/Tom Tailor)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 461/08)

1.

On 24 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2016461EN.01003301-E0001) by which the undertaking Fosun International Limited (‘Fosun’, China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Tom Tailor Holding AG (‘Tom Tailor’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Fosun: insurance, banking, investment, asset management, pharmaceutical, healthcare, steel and mining, real estate, consumer and lifestyle,

—   for Tom Tailor: sale of classic and modern casual wear for men, women and children in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Benelux countries and France under the brands Tom Tailor, Tom Tailor Denim, Tom Tailor Contemporary, Tom Tailor Polo Team, Bonita and Bonita Men.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2016461EN.01003301-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8262 — Fosun International/Tom Tailor, to the following address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2016461EN.01003301-E0001)  
[OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2016461EN.01003301-E0002)  
[OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Rutherford  County School District (TN): In October 2012, OCR resolved a complaint alleging  that a teacher called a student a “monkey” and then retaliated against him for  filing a complaint with the school by writing a disciplinary referral for  tardiness and giving him a zero on a class assignment. In addition, the  complainant, who is the student’s mother, alleged that school officials  subjected the student to racial discrimination and retaliated against him when  they grabbed the student’s cell phone and forced him to unlock it so they could  read his text messages aloud. During the course of the investigation, OCR found  that a school official retaliated against the student by reading his text  messages, but did not find violations with respect to the other allegations. To  remedy the retaliation OCR found, the district agreed to train staff annually  on Title VI’s prohibition against retaliation and to destroy any written  records it created of the student’s text messages.

Read the Resolution Letter PDF (96.6K) | Read the Resolution Agreement PDF (69.05K)
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 11, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00521-CR 

No. 05-13-00522-CR 

No. 05-13-00523-CR 

DAVID WAYNE CHUMBLEY, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-51536-I, F11-51537-I, F11-00261-I 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald 

David Wayne Chumbley pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an 

amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, possession of 3,4-methylendedioxy 

methamphetamine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, and possession 

with intent to deliver phencyclidine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. 

Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court assessed punishment at eight years’ imprisonment in 

each case. The trial court certified that the cases involve plea bargains and appellant has no right 

to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

130521F.U05 

 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DAVID WAYNE CHUMBLEY, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00521-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F11-51536-I. 

Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, 

Justices Francis and Myers participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered September 11, 2013 

 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DAVID WAYNE CHUMBLEY, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00522-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F11-51537-I. 

Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, 

Justices Francis and Myers participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered September 11, 2013 

 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DAVID WAYNE CHUMBLEY, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00523-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F11-00261-I. 

Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, 

Justices Francis and Myers participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered September 11, 2013 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
208.002 Priorities for use of mandatory Government sources. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Supplies.* ( i ) See the guidance at PGI 208.002(a)(1)(i) to obtain information on available items in DoD's property inventories.
( v ) See subpart 208.70, Coordinated Acquisition, and subpart 208.74, Enterprise Software Agreements.
[85 FR 34530, June 5, 2020]
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549



FORM 10-Q/A



QUARTERLY REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



For the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005



CENTURY REALTY TRUST

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



|                                                                                                 |                                 |                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|INDIANA
(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation or organization)                           | 0-7716
(Commission File Number) | 35-1284316
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|                                                                                                 |                                 |                                                
|823 Chamber of Commerce Building, Indianapolis, Indiana
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | 46204
(Zip Code)               



(317) 632-5467

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)



N/A

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes X  No __



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer.  See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated filer in Rule 12b-23 of the Exchange Act.



Large Accelerated Filer  __

Accelerated Filer __

Non-Accelerated Filer  X



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes __ No X



Shares of Beneficial Interest, no par value--1,799,464 shares outstanding as of latest practicable date.





Explanatory Note:

We are amending our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 to revise the officer certifications set forth in Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to reflect the language exactly as set forth in Item 601(b)(31) of Regulations S-K.



ITEM 15. EXHIBITS



Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications:

31.1 - Certification by Principal Executive Officer

31.2 - Certification by Principal Financial and Accounting Officer





______________________________________________________________________________



SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



CENTURY REALTY TRUST





Date:  June 7, 2006

By:  /s/John I. Bradshaw, Jr.

Name:  John I. Bradshaw, Jr.

Title:  President and Trustee
#### 225.7020-2 Prohibition.

In accordance with section 890 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92), DoD is prohibited from entering into a contract for the procurement of products or services with any person that has business operations with an authority of the government of Venezuela that is not recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the U.S. Government, except as provided in 225.7020-3 or 225.7020-4.

[87 FR 31960, May 26, 2022]
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 16 

To constitute the majority party’s membership on certain committees for 

the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 20, 2017 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To constitute the majority party’s membership on certain 

committees for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, 

or until their successors are chosen. 

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the following committee for 

3 the One Hundredth Fifteenth Congress, or until their suc4 cessors are chosen: 

5 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION: Mr. 

6 Shelby, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 

7 Roberts, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Wicker, 

8 Mrs. Fischer. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6931
CHRISTOPHER CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LESLIE M. MCCANN, Assistant Commonwealth, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-831-7) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Carter, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
227.7103-12 Government right to establish conformity of markings. ( a ) *Nonconforming markings.* ( 1 ) Authorized markings are identified in the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services. All other markings are nonconforming markings. An authorized marking that is not in the form, or differs in substance, from the marking requirements in the clause at 252.227-7013 is also a nonconforming marking.
( 2 ) The correction of nonconforming markings on technical data is not subject to 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data. To the extent practicable, the contracting officer should return technical data bearing nonconforming markings to the person who has placed the nonconforming markings on such data to provide that person an opportunity to correct or strike the nonconforming marking at that person's expense. If that person fails to correct the nonconformity and return the corrected data within 60 days following the person's receipt of the data, the contracting officer may correct or strike the nonconformity at that person's expense. When it is impracticable to return technical data for correction, contracting officers may unilaterally correct any nonconforming markings at Government expense. Prior to correction, the data may be used in accordance with the proper restrictive marking.
( b ) *Unjustified markings.* ( 1 ) An unjustified marking is an authorized marking that does not depict accurately restrictions applicable to the Government's use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of the marked technical data. For example, a limited rights legend placed on technical data pertaining to items, components, or processes that were developed under a Government contract either exclusively at Government expense or with mixed funding (situations under which the Government obtains unlimited or government purpose rights) is an unjustified marking.
( 2 ) Contracting officers have the right to review and challenge the validity of unjustified markings. However, at any time during performance of a contract and notwithstanding existence of a challenge, the contracting officer and the person who has asserted a restrictive marking may agree that the restrictive marking is not justified. Upon such agreement, the contracting officer may, at his or her election, either— ( i ) Strike or correct the unjustified marking at that person's expense; or
( ii ) Return the technical data to the person asserting the restriction for correction at that person's expense. If the data are returned and that person fails to correct or strike the unjustified restriction and return the corrected data to the contracting officer within 60 days following receipt of the data, the unjustified marking shall be corrected or stricken at that person's expense.
[60 FR 33471, June 28, 1995, as amended at 88 FR 6585, Jan. 31, 2023]