alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 905.34 Adjustment provisions.

Western reserves the right to adjust marketable resources committed to all customers with long-term firm power contracts only as required to respond to changes in hydrology and river operations, except as otherwise expressly provided in these regulations. Under contracts that extend resources under this PMI, existing customers shall be given at least 5 years' notice before adjustments are made. New customers may receive less notice. The earliest that any notice under this section shall become effective is the date that existing contractual commitments expire. Any adjustment shall only take place after an appropriate public process. Withdrawals to serve project use and other purposes provided for by contract shall continue to take place based on existing contract/marketing criteria principles.
#### Eleanor Connell, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of Catherine Connell and Others, Appellant-Respondent, v. Ann B. Figman, Respondent-Appellant.

Order entered December 24, 1969 unanimously modified on the law to the extent of directing summary judgment for plaintiff for the sum $1,200.38 without interest and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In this accounting action defendant concedes a balance due plaintiff of $1,200.38 and has tendered that sum. Judgment to that extent should have been rendered. The disputed item as to the propriety of hiring an attorney, the services rendered and the value thereof should be determined by the court or a Special Referee. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 
 I, Joel
D. Knudson, Vice President - Finance and Secretary of Criticare Systems, Inc.,
certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Criticare Systems,
Inc.;
 
 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 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 those entities, particularly during the
period in which this 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 on 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 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 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 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:
February 11, 2005
 
 /s/  Joel D.
Knudson
 Joel D.
Knudson
 Vice President -
Finance and Secretary
  2
#### South & North Ala. Railroad Co. *v.*Bradley.

*Suit toy Cleric for Court Costs.*

1. *Action by clerk, against successful party, for costs incurred.*— An action lies in favor of a circuit clerk, against the successful party in a civil suit, for subpoenas issued, at his instance, or other official services rendered, although these items were included in the judgment for costs rendered against the unsuccessful party.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Tried before Hon. L. E. Box.

This was a suit by R. C. Bradley, on the common counts fox a sum of money due him as clerk of the Circuit Court of Jefferson county, for issuing *siibpamas*for the defendant’s witnesses, at the instance and request of defendant, in cases brought against defendant in said Circuit Court by different parties, but in which suits, on the trial, the defend*469ant was tbe successful party; tbe costs accruing at tbe instance of tbe said defendant in sucb cases, having never been paid to said Bradley. Tbe court gave tbe general charge in favor of plaintiff.

Hewitt, Walker & Porter, for appellant,

cited Code of 1886, § 2837.

Gillespy & Smyer; and Webb *&*Tillman, *contra,*

cited 69 Ala. 318; 71 Ala. 44)6; 78 Ala. 318; *Ib.*1; 51 Ala. 488.

SOMEBTVTLLE, J.:

Tbe fees due tbe plaintiff, as compensation for official services performed by him, at tbe request of tbe defendant, being sucb as were authorized by law, constituted a debt, for which an action of debt, or *indebitatus assumpsit*would clearly lie. And tbe provisions of tbe statute, authorizing a judgment to be rendered in favor of tbe successful party for *costs*in civil actions (Code of 1886, § 2837), is no bar to tlie maintenance of such a suit. *Hill v. White,*1 Ala. 576; *Carville v. Reynolds,*9 Ala. 969; *Tillman v. Wood,*58 Ala. 578; *Dane v. Loomis,*51 Ala. 487: *Bradley v. State,*69 Ala. 318.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2506

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Darron Van Hill

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: April 1, 2020

Filed: April 6, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Darron Van Hill appeals after he conditionally pleaded guilty to a firearms

offense, and the district court1

 imposed a 24-month prison sentence. His counsel has

1The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 
moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. Upon careful

review, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion. See United

States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); see also

United States v. Shackleford, 830 F.3d 751, 753 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that probable

cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband or evidence of criminal

activity justifies the warrantless search of the automobile and seizure of the

contraband).

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
## Process Diagram Photos

Location A: Mining & Location B: Crushing

Photo A1: Production Truck and Shovel 

### A1 B 1 B2Photo B 1: Crusher

Photo B2 : Surge Pile

### Location C: Concentrating

Photo C1 : Autogenous Grinding Mills 

### C 1 C7

C2

C9 C3

C4 C5

C10 C6

C8Photo C2 : Roughers

Photo C3 : CyclonesPhoto C4 : Finishers

Photo C5 : Fine ScreensPhoto C6 : Ventimill Grinding MillPhoto C7 : Cobbing Reject Pile

Photo C8 : HydroseperatorPhoto C9 : Tailings Basin

Photo C 10 : Concentrate Thickener

### Location D: Pelletizing

Photo D1 : Disc Filters 

### D1

D3

D6 D4

D7 D5 D2

D8Photo D2 : Concentrate Stockpile

Photo D 3 : Storage BinsPhoto D 4 : Bentonite Addition

Photo D5 : Water Addition PhotoPhoto D6 : Balling Drums

Photo D 7 : Green Ball Roll ScreensPhoto D 8 : Conveying

### Location D: Pelletizing

Photo: Exterior Indurating Furnace Profile



### D9 D10

D12

D11 D13

D14 D 16 D17 D18 D19

D20 D21

4

D21

4 D15

4Photo D 9 : Indurating Furnace

Photo D10: Roll Conveyor at Feed End of FurnacePhoto D1 1 : Ducting for Feed End Scrubber

Photo D 1 2 : Updraft Drying ZonePhoto D1 3 : Lower Burner

Photo D 1 4 : Pallet CarsPhoto D1 5 : Empty Pallet Cars

Photo D1 6 : Pallet Cars emptying final product at end of furnacePhoto D1 7 : Green Fine Return

Photo D1 8 : Exterior conveyor to pellet load out binsPhoto D19 : Pellet Load Out Bins

Photo D20 : Furnace Discharge ScrubberPhoto D21 : Furnace Exhaust Stacks
#### HEINZE, Appellant, v. ASSETS REALIZATION CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by F. Augustus Heinze against the Assets Realization Company. Edgar T. Brackett of Saratoga Springs, for appellant. Henry R. Stern, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1120.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,733
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,220
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,925,011
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      3,288,399
<ALLOWANCE>                                     78,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,899,423
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,359,202
<SHORT-TERM>                                   630,391
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            705,291
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,750,261
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,921
<OTHER-SE>                                     422,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               5,899,423
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                162,681
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               58,648
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 5,602
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               226,931
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              59,813
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             116,645
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          110,286
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   27,191
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (727)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                112,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,587
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      37,399
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    218
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,617
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.11
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,698
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,743
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                10,314
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                64,217
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   18,385
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,857
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               78,880
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            78,880
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 1134.505 Content of REP Article V. ( a ) *Source of reporting requirement.* Any requirement in a DoD Component's general terms and conditions for recipients to provide a type of report not addressed in REP Articles I-IV must: ( 1 ) Have a basis in a statute or regulation adopted in the Federal Register after an opportunity for public comment; and ( 2 ) Use a form/format that has been approved by OMB under the PRA, as implemented by OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. ( b ) *Award terms and conditions.* ( 1 ) To implement any reporting requirement described in paragraph (a) of this section, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include the following content in REP Article V, consistent with the PRA approval. Otherwise, REP Article V must be reserved. ( a ) The name of the report and where a recipient can obtain it; ( b ) For an interim report, the frequency with which it must be submitted and due date(s); ( c ) For a final report, whether the report is due 90 days or, if the DoD Component has pre-approved a 30-day extension, 120 days after the end of the period of performance; and ( d ) To what DoD office/official the report(s) must be submitted. ( 2 ) If there is more than one such report, the DoD Component must show the information for each in separate sections of the article.
§ 963.13 Preclosure suitability evaluation method. ( a ) DOE will evaluate preclosure suitability using a preclosure safety evaluation method. DOE will evaluate the performance of the geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site using the method described in paragraph (b) of this section and the criteria in § 963.14. DOE will consider the performance of the system in terms of the criteria to evaluate whether the geologic repository is likely to comply with the applicable radiation protection standard.
( b ) The preclosure safety evaluation method, using preliminary engineering specifications, will assess the adequacy of the repository facilities to perform their intended functions and prevent or mitigate the effects of postulated Category 1 and 2 event sequences. The preclosure safety evaluation will consider: ( 1 ) A preliminary description of the site characteristics, the surface facilities and the underground operating facilities;
( 2 ) A preliminary description of the design bases for the operating facilities and a preliminary description of any associated limits on operation;
( 3 ) A preliminary description of potential hazards, event sequences, and their consequences; and
( 4 ) A preliminary description of the structures, systems, components, equipment, and operator actions intended to mitigate or prevent accidents.
#### STROUSE et al. v. SCHLOSS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Action by Clarence A. Strouse and others against Harry B. Schloss.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
#### § 781.81 [Reserved]
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ANDREW et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Charles Andrew and others.

No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the Court of Special Sessions affirmed by default.
February 26, 2015

 

Wells Fargo Bank, NA, as Certificate Administrator

Attn: Compliance Manager

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

RE:           Annual Statement as to Compliance

    WFRBS 2013 C12

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C12, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A. (NCB) (the "Co-op Special Servicer"), I hereby certify that:

 

a.   A review of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.   To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the year.

 

Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2015

 

Best regards,

 

/s/  Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President, Investor Compliance

   National Cooperative Bank, N.A

 
|  

www.ncb.coop | Banking & Financial Services 

Cooperative Expansion 

Economic Development |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

Banking products and services provided by National Cooperative Bank, N.A. Member FDIC.
2007-1452.

#### Sogg v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-883, 2007-Ohio-3219. On motion for admission pro hac vice of John R. Wylie and Arthur T. Susman by William C. Wilkinson and Craig A. Caleaterra. Motion granted.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Joshua Ogle, * From the 244th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. C-139,276-A.

Vs. No. 11-16-00170-CV * November 10, 2016

CSI Inspection, LLC; Dupré Energy * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

Services, LLC; and Ralph Frazier, (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Joshua Ogle’s motion to dismiss this appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against the party incurring same.
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.26 Recordkeeping and reporting. ( a ) *Recordkeeping.* Contractors must: ( 1 ) Establish and maintain complete and accurate records of all hazard inventory information, hazard assessments, exposure measurements, and exposure controls.
( 2 ) Ensure that the work-related injuries and illnesses of its workers and subcontractor workers are recorded and reported accurately and consistent with DOE reporting directives.
( 3 ) Comply with the applicable occupational injury and illness recordkeeping and reporting workplace safety and health standards in § 851.23 at their site, unless otherwise directed by DOE.
( 4 ) Not conceal nor destroy any information concerning non-compliance or potential noncompliance with the requirements of this part.
( b ) *Reporting and investigation.* Contractors must: ( 1 ) Report and investigate accidents, injuries and illness; and
( 2 ) Analyze related data for trends and lessons learned.
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 59954, Dec. 18, 2017]
% Predict blood CPY and urine TCPY levels

% Drinking water concentrations from Bulb Onion_GAOnion_WirringSTD_Reservoir_Parent_TSadj.xlsx % From 12/31/1964 to 3/31/1965 % Adults % Cecilia Tan % January 21, 2016

% Setting model parameters use human_parameters_MRP use preg_female_parameters BWSW=1; % Set body weight to a fixed value BWST=72.9; % Set body weight to 72.9 kg for female PREG=0; % Not pregnant DT(1) = 0.0; DORAL(1) = 0.0; TSTOP=2904; %Simulation time

%TO READ IN DOSES FROM AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET. must be saved as .xls VOLUME=1.71062 % Water consumption volume in L/DAY EVENTS=4 % Drinking frequency per day DT = xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "adult", "A2:A486") ; % Dosing Times AMTCDOSE=xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "adult", "B2:B486")*VOLUME/EVENTS; % Dose in ug/l

% Output RBC AChE, venous blood conc for cpf, urine TCPY conc, venous blood conc for oxon prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy cvo start@nocallback

mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5]; % Output unit ug/L for concentrations save mytable @file='onion_adult_01222016.txt' @format=ascii
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD CARROLL , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4860

_____________________________/ Opinion filed May 7, 2015. An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael A. Flowers , Judge

. Christopher Edward Carroll, pro se , Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. He ller, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Edward Carroll appeals from an order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. The trial court denied the motion as untimely . We reverse for further proceedings.It is improper to deny a postconviction motion as time

- barred where the motion is timely on its face. See Martinez v. State , 842 So. 2d 900 , 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Further, an order denying a postconviction motion as procedurally barred may be reversed where the record does not reflect that the defendant is not
entitled to relief. See Salabarria v. State , 100 So. 3d 231 , 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). In the instant case, the appellant alleged in his motion that he was sen tenced
in all four cases that were the subject of the motion on September 4, 2013

. If this allegation is true, the appellant’s motion, filed on September 3 , 2014, would be timely. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b) (“ No motion shall be filed or considered
pursu ant to this rule if filed more than 1 year after the sentence becomes final.”)

. In
its order of d ismissal , the trial court asserted that the appellant was sentenced in all four cases on June 14, 2013, which would render his motion untimely. See id. (“For s entences imposed prior to July 1, 2013, a motion under this rule may be filed on or before July 1, 2014.”)

. However, as the s tate conceded in response to
this Court’s Toler 1 order , the appellant’ s motion was timely on its face and the trial
court failed to attach documents demonstrating that the appellant was not entitled

to relief. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order d ismissing the appellant's rule
3. 801 motion. On remand, should the trial court again conclude that appellant's rule

1 Toler v. State , 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). 23.801 moti on is procedurally barred , it shall attach to its order the portions of the
record demonstrating that the appellant is not entitled to relief

. O therwise, it shall
consider the motion on the merits

. REVERSED and REMANDED. WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., CON CUR.

3
§ 2336.20 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 (see table at 2 CFR 180.100(b)) apply to you if you are a— ( a ) Participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see subpart B of 2 CFR part 180 and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” at 2 CFR 180.970);
( b ) Respondent in an SSA suspension or debarment action;
( c ) SSA debarment or suspension official; or
( d ) SSA grants officer, agreements officer, or other official authorized to enter into any type of nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction.