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

U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

An Interpretation of the 1997 Airborne ElectroMagnetic (AEM) Survey, Fort Huachuca Vicinity, Cochise County, Arizona

By

Mark W. Bultman,1 Mark E. Gettings,1 and Jeff Wynn2

**Open-File Report 997B**

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This report, USGS Open-File Report 997B, is an online version of a CDROM publication, USGS Open-File Report 997A. This Web version contains many files that were downsampled for viewing on the screen:

- the PostScript files associated with each figure in chapter 3 (63 MB). Go to the PostScript archive where you can find the PostScript version of the figure in question and print it by sending it to a PostScript printer or open it in an application that can create PDFs such as Adobe Acrobat Distiller or Apple Prevew.

1) U.S. Geological Survey, Suite 355, 520 N. Park Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719

2) U.S. Geological Survey, MS 954, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA 20192

**1999**

---

***Contents***

**Executive Summary**

*By Mark E. Gettings, Mark W. Bultman, and Jeff Wynn*

**Introduction**

*By Mark E. Gettings, Jeff Wynn, and Mark W. Bultman*

**Chapter 1**

**An Interpretation of the Aeromagnetic Data from the 1997 Airborne ElectroMagnetic (AEM) Survey, Fort Huachuca Vicinity, Cochise County, Arizona***By Mark E. Gettings*

**Chapter 2**

**A Description, Comparison to Other Data, and Interpretation of the Electromagnetic Data from the 1997 Airborne ElectroMagnetic (AEM) Survey, Fort Huachuca Vicinity, Cochise County, Arizona***By Jeff Wynn*

**Chapter 3**

**An Interpretation of Digital Conductivity Depth Transform Data from the 1997 Airborne ElectroMagnetic (AEM) Survey, Fort Huachuca Vicinity, Cochise County, Arizona***By Mark W. Bultman and Mark E. Gettings*

**APPENDIX 1**

**San Pedro Model Area Well Information from the Arizona Ground Water Site Inventory (GWSI) Database**

**APPENDIX 2**

**Data from the AEM Survey**

The data file is provided here as a .zip document that contains three folders and 94 files.  Download the data file now (data.zip; 56 MB compressed, 302 MB expanded).

|U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
              Maintained by: Michael Diggles
              Created: February 9, 2000
              Last update: September 1, 2009
              | Privacy statement | Disclaimer | Accessibility |
              URL of this page: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of99-007-b/index.html | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
###### Editorial Note on Part 35

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 35.59 Recentness of training.

The training and experience specified in Subparts B, D, E, F, G, and H of this part must have been obtained within the 7 years preceding the date of application or the individual must have had related continuing education and experience since the required training and experience was completed.

[71 FR 15008, Mar. 27, 2006]
§ 1132.205 Procurement procedures. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must address requirements for procurement systems of institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, local governments, and Indian tribes.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions.* In order to implement the requirement described in paragraph (a) of this section, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording that appendix B provides for Sections A through F of PROC Article II.
H. Res. 382 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 27, 2017. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 1215) to improve patient access to health care services 

and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive 

burden the liability system places on the health care delivery 

system. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 

Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in 

order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature 
2 

•HRES 382 EH 

of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 115–10. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 

shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 

amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 

amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 

shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 

Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 

amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 

report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 

report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 

time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 

the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 

the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

made in order as original text. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
3 

•HRES 382 EH 

final passage without intervening motion except one motion 

to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
TheHonorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1106

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Francisco Barraza-Canizales, also * District of Nebraska. known as Poncho, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 4, 1998 Filed: November 9, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Francisco Bar

raza-Canizales appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court fo llowing his guilty plea to distributing methamphetamine in violation of 2 1 1 U.S.C
. § 841(a)(1). The court sentenced Barraza-Canizales at the bottom of the applic ableGuidelines range to 63 months & imprisonment and five years & supervise d release. After appell ate counsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California ,-2-

386 U.S . 738 (1967), we granted Barraza-Canizales permission to file a pro s e supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Ourr eview of the record reveals the existence of no nonfrivolous issues. Se e Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel & s motion to withdraw is granted. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.125 What requirements apply to equipment that is subject to this subpart used in the transport of covered produce? Equipment that is subject to this subpart that you use to transport covered produce must be: ( a ) Adequately clean before use in transporting covered produce; and
( b ) Adequate for use in transporting covered produce.
§ 850.31 Release criteria. ( a ) The responsible employer must clean beryllium-contaminated equipment and other items to the lowest contamination level practicable, but not to exceed the levels established in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and label the equipment or other items, before releasing them to the general public or a DOE facility for non-beryllium use, or to another facility for work involving beryllium.
( b ) Before releasing beryllium-contaminated equipment or other items to the general public or for use in a non-beryllium area of a DOE facility, the responsible employer must ensure that: ( 1 ) The removable contamination level of equipment or item surfaces does not exceed the higher of 0.2 μg/100 cm2 or the concentration level of beryllium in soil at the point or release, whichever is greater;
( 2 ) The equipment or item is labeled in accordance with § 850.38(b); and
( 3 ) The release is conditioned on the recipient's commitment to implement controls that will prevent foreseeable beryllium exposure, considering the nature of the equipment or item and its future use and the nature of the beryllium contamination.
( c ) Before releasing beryllium-contaminated equipment or other items to another facility performing work with beryllium, the responsible employer must ensure that: ( 1 ) The removable contamination level of equipment or item surfaces does not exceed 3 μg/100 cm2;
( 2 ) The equipment or item is labeled in accordance with § 850.38(b); and
( 3 ) The equipment or item is enclosed or placed in sealed, impermeable bags or containers to prevent the release of beryllium dust during handling and transportation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,569,390
<SECURITIES>                                 7,150,899
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,623,977
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,804,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          339,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,464,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,804,231
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,808
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               188,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,165)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 200.327 Contract provisions.

The non-Federal entity's contracts must contain the applicable provisions described in appendix II to this part.
# L_2013084EN.01002901.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 84/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/29

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 268 of 14 September 1992
  )

On page 64, Article 20, second paragraph:

for:

‘Pending implementation of the decisions provided for in Article 8 (3) and Article 30 of Directive 91/496/EEC, ...’,

read:

‘Pending implementation of the decisions provided for in Article 8, point B and Article 30 of Directive 91/496/EEC, ...’.

---
228 So.2d 484

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Jack Wesley DENNIS v. C. M. HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50262.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Jack Wesley Dennis applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

*929Application not considered. The applicant previously applied to this court for supervisory relief from the same habeas corpus judgment and this court denied the relief sought. See State ex rel. Dennis v. Henderson, Warden, 254 La. 798, 226 So.2d 923. An application for rehearing will not be considered when the court has refused to grant a writ. See Rule XI, Section 5, Rules of this Court. Similarly, the court will not reconsider granting the same relief based upon a second application.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1834 Prepped byKeeiaRichards



### Document

Number: 

# 2 ) VI-C-01 Docket Number: 

# A-90-07

Printed 11/10/20082:14:33 PM Sheet 2 of 61

# USB UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NATIONA LVEHICL E AN D FUE LEMISSION S LABORATOR Y

256 5 PLYMOUT H ROA D AN N ARBOR , MICHIGA N 4810 5 P. 2 

# 4-10-0 7 

# I[-c-o\

JA N 

## 1 1 199

5 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## Mr . Ne d J . Seppi ^TT^TO--^4 ? Environmenta l an d Safet yCoordinato r 1\^V-''\.---"*" " W^ f Operation s Suppor t i', ' > • _ _- 0 \QQ

S \*J Corporat e Health , Environment , an d Safety- , yfE B " J ' V Maratho nOi l Compan yj'-''--••' ; ._-~*- J 53 9 Sout hMai nStree t < L^-s^^TT r */•'£ ? Findlay , Ohi o 45840-329 5 \ --r\ L\\-A^"-'ZLZ "
- \ &A Dea r Mr . Seppi : Charle s Gra yha s aske d m e t o respon dt o you r lette r o f Decembe r 12 , 1994 , whic hrequeste d tha t w e reconside r th e groupin g specification s i n th e Fuel s an d Fue l Additive s (F/FA ) Registratio n Regulation s pertainin g t o fuel s derive dfro msyntheti c crud e oi l sources . I n particular , yo u requeste dtha t th e groupin g rule s b e change d suc htha t fuel s derive dfro mta r sand s crud e woul db e include d i n th e baselin e category . Th e existin g groupin g rules , whic hexclud e syntheti c fuel s fro mth e baselin e groups , wer e base do n ou r understandin g tha t th e compositio no f thes e fuel s coul db e appreciabl ydifferen t fro m conventiona l petroleum-base dfuels . However. , w e ar e carefull y reviewin g th e dat a yo u hav e provided , alon g wit hothe r informatio n w e hav e receive d sinc e publicatio no f th e ne wregulations . I f a chang e appear s t o b e warranted , w e wil l conside r proposin g a revisio nt o th e curren t groupin g rules . W e appreciat e you r interes t i n thi s regulatio nan d th e usefu l informatio nyo u provide d wit hyou r letter . Sincerel yyours ,
..Judit hGra j /Senio r Projec t M.an£ge r Regulatio nDevelopmen t an dSuppor t Divisio n

cc : Charle s Gra y

Printed on Recycled

Paper
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantis Business DevelopmentCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I Tim DeHerrera, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

(4) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

By: ***/s/ Tim DeHerrera***

Tim DeHerrera

President

Dated:    November 19,2004

----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantis Business DevelopmentCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I Tim DeHerrera, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

(4) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

By: ***/s/ Tim DeHerrera***

Tim DeHerrera

CEO

Dated:    November 19,2004
#### MORRIS RICHMAN, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, RESPONDENT.

Submitted January 17, 1939

Decided March 2, 1939.

*181Before Justices Case, Donges and Porter.

For the prosecutor, *Irving Mandelbaum (Ralph H. Jacobson,*of counsel).

For the respondent, *James F. X. O’Brien (Joseph A. Ward,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

The question presented on this writ of *certiorari*is the legality of an ordinance adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the city of Newark, the respondents, which prohibits the sale of groceries on Sundays between the hours of one o’clock p. m. and twelve o’clock midnight, and provides penalties of fines or imprisonment for its violation.

The prosecutor is a grocer in Newark and also a licensed dealer in intoxicating beverages, at retail, for consumption oif the premises. He contends that the practical effect of the ordinance is to prohibit him from selling groceries, but not from selling liquor on Sundays after one o’clock p. M. He says that the ordinance is discriminatory and unreasonable in prohibiting groceries only and not affecting other merchants dealing in general merchandise, many of whom also sell foodstuffs not classified as groceries. The argument is also made that the ordinance violates the Vice and Immorality statute, *R. S.*2:207-6, which expressly makes unlawful the sale of any “wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, meat, fish, goods or chattels on Sunday.”

We do not find that the ordinance is in violation of the statute in question. It is not inconsistent with the long settled policy of the state as expressed by the legislature in *182the Vice and Immorality act, *supra.*On the contrary, it seeks to strengthen that policy by providing more severe penalties than the act calls for if sales of groceries are made during the afternoon or evening of Sunday. True it might have included all the hours of the day and also all merchandise, but the failure to do so does not invalidate it nor make lawful the sale of groceries during the hours before one p. M. For do we think it can be said that by making this prohibition of the sale of groceries there was any invitation given expressly or by implication that the law might be violated by the sale of other prohibited merchandise on Sunday. This court cannot interfere with proper governmental functions of municipalities. Ordinances prohibiting the carrying on of business on Sunday have repeatedly been upheld by this court. *Cf. Sherman*v. Paterson, 83 *N. J. L.*345; *Schachter*v. *Hauenstein,*92 *Id.*104; *Schumacker*v. *Little*Falls, 92 *Id.*106; *Thorne*v. Kearny, 100 *Id.*228; *Mazzarelli*v. *City of*Elizabeth, 11 *N. J. Mis. R.*150.

Is the ordinance discriminatory or unreasonable? The legal presumption is that it is neither. The proofs before us do not overcome that presumption. It is general and applies to all grocery stores in the city without any exceptions. It is not class legislation. *Cf. Quigley*v. *Lehigh Valley Railroad*Co., 80 *N. J. L.*486 (at *p.*493); *Van Riper*v. Parsons, 40 *Id.*1; *Doherty*v. Spitznagle, 104 *Id.*38.

The writ is dismissed, with costs.
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 97-4844

Non-Argument Calendar.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Kenneth CHANG, Defendant-Appellant.

May 28, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (No. 96-653-CRLCN), Lenore C. Nesbitt, Judge.

Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Chang pled guilty on November 21, 1996 to one count of conspiracy to possess

counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and one count of manufacturing counterfeit

currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471. At the March 27, 1997 sentencing hearing, the district

court sentenced Chang to 41 months' incarceration, a three-year term of supervised release, and a

$200 assessment. The district court did not advise Chang of his right to appeal the sentence;

nonetheless, Chang filed a timely notice of appeal. Paradoxically, the only issue raised by Chang

in this appeal is that he was not advised of his right to appeal. Because the district court's error was

obviously harmless, we affirm.

Discussion

Rule 32(c)(5) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a sentencing court to

advise a defendant of his right to appeal his sentence. In Thompson v. United States, 111 F.3d 109

(11th Cir.1997), Thompson was not advised of his right to appeal his sentence and, importantly, did
2

not take an appeal. He brought a collateral action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate

his sentence on that ground. We held that "the sentencing court's failure to advise Appellant of his

right to appeal his sentence constitutes error per se," and vacated Thompson's sentence. Id. at 110.

We did so in order to effectuate the purpose of Rule 32(c)(5)—" "to insure that a convicted

defendant be advised precisely of his right to appeal and to avoid a situation where the Government

claims a defendant is otherwise aware of his right to appeal while the defendant denies such

knowledge.' " Id. at 111, quoting, Paige v. United States, 443 F.2d 781, 782 (4th Cir.1971).

Thompson does not require resentencing in this case. Here, there is no dispute as to whether

Chang was aware of his right to appeal; his timely appeal belies any such claim. The per se rule

articulated in Thompson applies where a defendant is not advised of his right to appeal and, in fact,

does not appeal. In that situation, the per se rule effectuates both the purpose of Rule 32(c)(5) and

the added "policy of preventing excessive litigation." Thompson, 111 F.3d at 111. In this situation,

neither rationale applies, and the violation of Rule 32(c)(5) was harmless. See United States v.

Caswell, 36 F.3d 29, 30-31 (7th Cir.1994) (failure to advise defendant of right to appeal was

harmless where district court extended time to appeal to accommodate defendant).

AFFIRMED.