alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
22.103-4 Approvals.

(a) The contracting officer shall review the contractor’s request for overtime. Approval of the use of

overtime may be granted by an agency approving official after determining in writing that overtime

is necessary to-

(1) Meet essential delivery or performance schedules;

(2) Make up for delays beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor; or

(3) Eliminate foreseeable extended production bottlenecks that cannot be eliminated in any other

way.

(b) Approval by the designated official of use and total dollar amount of overtime is required before

inclusion of an amount in paragraph (a) of the clause at 52.222-2, Payment for Overtime Premiums.

(c) Contracting officer approval of payment of overtime premiums is required for time-and-materials

and labor-hour contracts (see paragraph (a)(8) of the clause at 52.232-7, Payments Under Time-andMaterials and Labor-Hour Contracts).

(d) No approvals are required for paying overtime premiums under other types of contracts.

(e) Approvals by the agency approving official (see 22.103-4(a)) may be for an individual contract,

project, program, plant, division, or company, as practical.

(f) During contract performance, contractor requests for overtime exceeding the amount authorized

by paragraph (a) of the clause at 52.222-2, Payment for Overtime Premiums, shall be submitted as

stated in paragraph (b) of the clause to the office administering the contract. That office will review

the request and if it approves, send the request to the contracting officer. If the contracting officer

determines that the requested overtime should be approved in whole or in part, the contracting

officer shall request the approval of the agency’s designated approving official and modify

paragraph (a) of the clause to reflect any approval.

(g) Overtime premiums at Government expense should not be approved when the contractor is

already obligated, without the right to additional compensation, to meet the required delivery date.

(h) When the use of overtime is authorized under a contract, the office administering the contract

and the auditor should periodically review the use of overtime to ensure that it is allowable in

accordance with the criteria in part 31. Only overtime premiums for work in those departments,

sections, etc., of the contractor’s plant that have been individually evaluated and the necessity for

overtime confirmed shall be considered for approval.

(i) Approvals for using overtime shall ordinarily be prospective, but, if justified by emergency

circumstances, approvals may be retroactive.

Parent topic: 22.103 Overtime.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the chief executive officer and chief financial officer,
respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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 results of operations of the
Company.


                                         /s/ C.E. Porter
                                         -----------------------
                                         C. E. Porter
                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date:  May 9, 2005
No. 47,248

#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Nichola Elias Awad and Fahim Khalil Abdelnur, *Appellants.*

(520 P. 2d 1281)

Opinion filed April 6, 1974.

*Hugh H. Kreamer,*of Breyfogle, Gardner, Martin, Davis and Kreamer, of Olathe, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellants.

*Margaret W. Jordan,*district attorney, argued the cause, and *Vern Miller,*attorney general, and *J. J. B. Wigglesworth,*assistant district attorney, were with her on the brief for the appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

Appellants were convicted of attempted felonious theft. On appeal it is claimed that the evidence does not support the charge of attempt under K. S. A. 1973 Supp. 21-3301, but presents a case only for a completed theft as defined by K. S. A. 1973 Supp. 21-3701.

The evidence showed that the defendants, while in a K-Mart store in Johnson County, took an empty hamper box and surreptitiously filled it with merchandise of the store of the value of $197.54. They sealed the box with tape and attempted to walk through the check-out stand by offering to pay only for the box presumably containing the hamper, for its marked price of $9.88.

The matter may be quickly disposed of. If the defendants had been charged with theft, it would have been for the jury to determine whether the theft had been completed by an unlawful taking when the goods were placed in the box, or whether doing so was an overt act toward the commission of an attempt to take the property from the store without paying for it.

The plans of the defendants to deprive the store of its property by taking it from the store concealed in the hamper and without paying for the merchandise were thwarted by the cashier, and the attempt failed.

The evidence was more than ample to support the charge of attempted theft. It was a question for the jury, and the conviction must stand.

In passing we should mention that former K. S. A. 21-102, providing that there should be no conviction for an attempted offense *500when a perpetrated offense was shown, has been repealed. That statute, prior to its repeal, was a mandate for an appropriate instruction to the jury. But the issue of whether there was a completed appropriation of property or a thwarted attempt evidenced by an overt act was, and is always, a jury question unless the evidence is so conclusive as to preclude submission of one in favor of the other. The evidence in this case does not conclusively exclude submission of the case on the charge of attempt.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roosevelt H. Griffin, Jr., Appellant.

Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County, both rendered September 9, 1977, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (Ind. No. 45764) and burglary in the third degree (Ind. No. 45980), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing concurrent sentences. Judgment rendered under Indictment No. 45764 reversed, on the law, plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree vacated and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith. Judgment rendered under Indictment No. 45980 affirmed. Under the circumstances of the instant case, wherein the uncontradicted evidence indicated that defendant’s plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree was motivated, at least in part, by a well-substantiated threat of death to his wife if he testified in his own behalf, it was an abuse of discretion for the pleading court to refuse to grant defendant’s presentence motion to reinstate his plea of not guilty (see *People v Flowers,*30 NY2d 315; see, also, *People v Grant,*45 NY2d 366; *People v Rolston,*66 AD2d 617; cf. *People v Lewis,*46 NY2d 825), especially in the absence of demonstrable prejudice to the People (see *People v McIntyre,*40 AD2d 1038; *People v East,*39 AD2d 606). The conviction of burglary in the third degree is not, however, similarly affected, and must be affirmed (see *People v Lowrance,*50 AD2d 769, affd 41 NY2d 303). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cohalan, J.,

concurs in the affirmance of the burglary conviction, but otherwise dissents and votes to affirm the robbery conviction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995

<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995

<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,135
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       177,833
<OTHER-SE>                                     (329,968)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (152,135)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        


</TABLE>
Stratigraphic Framework of Lower and Upper Cretaceous Rocks in Central and Eastern Montana

#### *By* Steven M. Condon

Version 1.0



The text of this report is presented here in Portable Document Format. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view it. If you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free, click here.

Readme TEXT file (7 KB)Readme PDF file (22 KB)

Report PDF file (942 KB)

Figure and plate PDF files:
(If you download these files separately, place them in a subdirectory named
"Illustrations" so that the main report PDF file (DDS57.pdf) will find
them in the expected place.)Figure 1 (91 KB)Figure 2 (54 KB)Plate 1 (257 KB)Plate 2 (1.5 MB)Plate 3 (1.3 MB)Plate 4 (1.4 MB)Plate 5 (1.5 MB)Plate 6 (355 KB)Plate 7 (329 KB)Plate 8 (384 KB)Plate 9 (411 KB)Plate 10 (315 KB)Plate 11 (395 KB)Plate 12 (395 KB)Plate 13 (384 KB)Plate 14 (377 KB)Plate 15 (329 KB)Plate 16 (527 KB)Plate 17 (331 KB)Plate 18 (399 KB)Plate 19 (381 KB)Plate 20 (396 KB)Plate 21 (377 KB)Plate 22 (377 KB)Plate 23 (403 KB)



AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and NoticesU.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/dds/dds-057/
Questions or Assistance: USGS Web Contact
Page Last Modified: Wed Nov 23 14:29 EDT 2016
#### Grace Gambino, Appellant, v. Florence Schuman, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 12, 1966, made on reargument, affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with $T0 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Appeal from order, dated April 21,1966, dismissed, without costs. That order was superseded by the later order granting reargument and adhering to the original decision. Motion by appellant *inter alia*to strike out respondent’s brief and for other relief (renewed upon argument of the appeal) denied, without costs. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.1.2

                             CERTIFICATE OF DECREASE

                                     OF THE

                           SERIES A PREFERENCE STOCK

                                       OF

                             PICTURETEL CORPORATION

                        Pursuant to Section 151(g) of the

                        Delaware General Corporations Law

     Reference is made to the Certificate Of Designation, Preferences And Other
Rights of the Series A Preference Stock ("THE SERIES A CERTIFICATE OF
DESIGNATION") of PictureTel Corporation, a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "CORPORATION"), which certificate
was dated February 15, 1999 and was duly filed with the Secretary of State of
the State of Delaware on February 16, 1999.

     PictureTel Corporation hereby certifies that, pursuant to the Certificate
of Incorporation of the Corporation, as amended, and in accordance with Section
151(g) of the Delaware General Corporations Law, the Board of Directors of the
Corporation on July 11, 2000 duly adopted the following resolution, which
resolution remains in full force and effect as of the date hereof:

     "RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority granted to and vested in the
Board of Directors and in accordance with the provisions of the Certificate of
Incorporation, the number of shares of Series A Preference Stock designated in
the Certificate Of Designation, Preferences And Other Rights ("THE SERIES A
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION") of this Corporation is reduced, subject to the
filing of the Certificate of Decrease with the Secretary of State of the State
of Delaware, as set forth below:

     1.   Section 1 of the Certificate of Designation is amended by replacing
          the words "Six Million (6,000,000)" in the second sentence with the
          words "Four Million Five Hundred Thousand (4,500,000)".


            [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
<PAGE>   2
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Decrease
to be executed by a duly authorized officer on July 17, 2000.


                                       PICTURETEL CORPORATION


                                       By:    ______________________________

                                       Name:  ______________________________

                                       Title: ______________________________


Certif. of Desig. Series A. decrease

                                       2
#### § 407.13 Area risk protection insurance for forage.

The forage crop insurance provisions for Area Risk Protection Insurance for the 2017 and succeeding crop years are as follows:

# UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

# Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

## Area Risk Protection Insurance

### Forage Crop Insurance Provisions

### 1. Definitions

*Forage.* Planted perennial alfalfa, perennial red clover, perennial grasses, or a mixture thereof, or other species as shown in the actuarial documents.

*Harvest.* Removal of the forage from the field. Harvest does not include grazing.

### 2. Insured Crop

The insured crop will be the forage types shown on the actuarial documents:

(a) Grown on insurable acreage in the county listed on the accepted application;

(b) Properly planted by the final planting date and reported on or before the acreage reporting date;

(c) Intended for harvest; and

(d) Not grown with another crop.

### 3. Insurable Acreage

In addition to section 5 of the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions, acreage seeded to forage after July 1 of the previous crop year will not be insurable.

### 4. Payment Dates

(a) Unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions the final county yields will be determined prior to May 1 following the crop year.

(b) If an indemnity is due, unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions we will issue any payment to you prior to May 31 following the crop year and following the determination of the final county yield.

### 5. Program Dates

September 30 is the cancellation and termination date for all states, unless the date is specified differently in the Special Provisions. The contract change date is June 30 for all states, unless the date is specified differently in the Special Provisions.

### 6. Report of Acreage

In addition to section 8(e)(2) of the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions, regarding the ability to revise an acreage report you have submitted to us, we may provide you consent to revise your acreage report to indicate acreage damaged by winterkill that was not harvested (no cutting taken) as uninsurable acreage. You must submit a revised acreage report on or before the date specified in the Special Provisions.

[78 FR 38507, June 26, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 73639, Nov. 25, 2015]
## 8\\AMPACTM r(JJ HALOTRON - ------- ------- ---

Mr. Kenneth Moss U.S. EPA August 27, 2015
Submittedvia CDX and FedEx

Team Leader, NewChemicals Program Office ofPollutionPrevention and Toxics WJC EPA EastBuilding, Room 4133C 1201 Constitution Ave NW Mail Code 7405M Washington, D.C. 20460 

### RE: Case# P-14-0260- 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene- Additional Exposure Monitoring at Amerex [Contains CBIJ DearMr. Moss: This letter is a follow-up to the last discussions we have had related to anticipated worker exposure related to filling offire extinguishers with the PMN substance. Your team had suggested generating new data. We therefore worked closely with Amerex to complete additional monitoring. This work was completed on the active Halotron I filling line at their Alabama plant. As discussed in prior monitoring reports, the Halotron I compound may be used as a conservative substitute for the PMN substance, with expected levels of the PMN substance being lower based on differences in physical properties. On the first 2015 visit to Amerex to gather more data, there was a realization that the existing fill booth was in fact equipped with a fan that ventilated vapors from the booth to the exterior ofthe building. Therefore, the data for the Amerex facility contained in the November 27, 2013 report, entitled Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Investigation & Occupational Exposure Assessment of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene, was with this fan operating. The monitoring at Amerex that was conducted on May 1 and 2, 2013 was completed with 11 Lb extinguishers. For the report we are submitting, all monitoring data was completed with 5 Lb extinguishers, which are more representative ofthe 3.75

Halotron Division 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 700 • Las Vegas , Nevada 89169 T

el: +1 (702) 735·2200 • Fax: +1 (702) 735·4876 www.halotron.comMr. Kenneth Moss August 27, 2015 Page2

BAC/bc Research Engineer, Halotron Division

Enc. IndustrialHygieneAssessmentReport, Ferguson RiskManagement, with July20 and August 11, 2015 Assessment Dates
cc: JeffGibson, AMPAC-Halotron, Vice President BellaMaranion, EPA SNAP Margaret Sheppard, EPA SNAP Rebecca VonDemi-Iagen, EPA SNAP



### 8\\AMPACTM 

# r cy HALOTRON
First Department,

November, 1980

(November 6, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Lee, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered November 1,1979, after a jury trial, convicting the defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in both the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of from three to nine years on the third degree count, and, as a predicate felon, from three to six years on the fifth degree count, modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to reduce the maximum on the third degree count so that the penalty on that count is three to six years, and otherwise affirmed. The defendant’s accomplice, who died after indictment, was arrested in possession of five envelopes of heroin. At the time the defendant fled into an abandoned building and threw a bag containing 27 envelopes of heroin out the window. The charge for possession with the intent to sell, being the third degree charge upon which the defendant was convicted, was based on his acting in concert with the accomplice, while the possession charge was based on the heroin envelopes thrown out of the window. Although not objected to, in answer to a question from the jury on the general subject of intent to sell, the Trial Judge may have created some confusion in including in respect thereto a reference to the evidence with respect to the heroin thrown out of the window in addition to that possessed by the accomplice. To ameliorate that situation, we reduce the maximum sentence for the third degree count so that it will be equally *786'concurrent with the sentence for possession. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6036
STANLEY HARVEY DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-246-5-H; CA-04-369-5-H) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Harvey Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stanley Harvey Davis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. United States , Nos. CA-04-246-5-H; CA-04-369-5-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2004). 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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1234

_____________________________

MERIENNE BLAKE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Bruce R. Anderson, Jr., Judge.

February 25, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Merienne Blake, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia C. Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
159 So.2d 284

#### Burtis L. BURNS et al. v. CHILD’S PROPERTIES, INC. et al.

No. 47007.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: Burtis L. Burns and Eula C. Burns applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 156 So.2d 610.

Writ denied. No error of law under the facts found by the Court of Appeal.