alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Ground-water geology and pump irrigation in Frenchman Creek Basin above Palisade, Nebraska

By: W. D. E. CardwellEdward D. Jenkins

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1577

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (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.
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5160 Therapeutic medical binder. ( a ) *Identification.* A therapeutic medical binder is a device, usually made of cloth, that is intended for medical purposes and that can be secured by ties so that it supports the underlying part of the body or holds a dressing in place. This generic type of device includes the abdominal binder, breast binder, and perineal binder.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 38804, July 25, 2001]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 9, 2015

t1202 

# Order

Clerk December 9, 2015

151715

MARKETPLACE OF ROCHESTER HILLS

PARCEL B, LLC, MARKETPLACE OF

ROCHESTER HILLS PARCEL C, LLC,

MARKETPLACE OF ROCHESTER HILLS

PARCEL D, LLC, and MARKETPLACE OF

ROCHESTER HILLS PARCEL G, LLC,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 151715

COA: 318894

Oakland CC: 2013

- 134395

- CB

COMERICA BANK,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE those parts of the Court of Appeals

judgment stating that the same transaction test for compulsory joinder and res judicata is

“if the same facts or evidence are essential to the maintenance of the two actions” and

whether the two claims “concern identical evid ence or essential facts.” The proper test is

“‘whether the facts are related in time, space, origin or motivation, [and] whether they

form a convenient trial unit . . . .’” Adair v Michigan , 470 Mich 105, 125 (2004), quoting

46 Am Jur 2d, Judgments § 533, p 801. When the same transaction test is properly

applied to this case, the result reached by the Court of Appeals is correct. In all other

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question

presented should be reviewed by this Court.

B ERNSTEIN

, J., not participating due to a familial relationship with one of the

named guarantors in this case.
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.4350 Ear, nose, and throat fiberoptic light source and carrier. ( a ) *Identification.* An ear, nose, and throat fiberoptic light source and carrier is an AC-powered device that generates and transmits light through glass of plastic fibers and that is intended to provide illumination at the tip of an ear, nose, or throat endoscope. Endoscopic devices which utilize fiberoptic light sources and carriers include the bronchoscope, esophagoscope, laryngoscope, mediastinoscope, laryngeal-bronchial telescope, and nasopharyngoscope.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 874.9.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 61 FR 1122, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38801, July 25, 2001]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7261

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAUL LABOY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-87-4-BO; CA-97-69-4-BO) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004 Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raul LaBoy, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* By order filed March 5, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton , No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Raul LaBoy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his motion for a bill of review that sought to modify his sentence and denying reconsideration. The district court construed LaBoy’s pleading as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it as successive, noting that LaBoy had not obtained authorization from this court to file such a motion. * An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (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 LaBoy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral- 3 - 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
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AMB ARWI B OWO, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72334 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 643- 138 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2011 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A m ba rW i bow o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED MA R 08 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 72334 2 u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e rev i ew fo r su b st an t i al ev i d en ce factual fi n d i n g s, W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. E ven i f W i bo w o t i m el y f i l ed hi s a sy l um appl i cat i on , subst ant i alevi dence s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s c onc l us i on tha tW i bow o di d note s t abl i s h tha the w a s or w o u ldb e p e r s e c u te do n a c c o u n t o f a n a c tu a l o rim p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n . Se e I NS v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n .1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; s e e a l s o Sa n gh a v . I

NS , 103 F . 3d 1482, 1489- 91 ( 9th C i r . 1997) . A c c or di ngl y , W i bow o’ s a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. See O choa v. G on zales , 40 6 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 72 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). F i nal l y, subst ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef be c aus e W i bow o f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nottha the w oul d be to rtu r e dif

r e tu rn e dto I n d o n e s ia . See W a kka ry , 558 F . 3d a t1068. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00346-CV

Peter Henry NAUMBURG,

Appellant

v.

Neida Courtney NAUMBURG,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-15-000043

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 16, 2015

APPEAL DISMISSED

On August 27, 2015, appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, stating the parties have 

resolved their issues. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 99.2

                                    EXHIBIT A

                                   Resignation

The undersigned hereby resigns from the LaserSight Board of Directors and from
serving as the Chairman of the LaserSight Board of Directors.

      /s/ Francis E. O'Donnell, Jr., M.D.
-----------------------------------------
Francis E. O'Donnell, Jr., M.D.

Dated: June 12, 2003
# C_2014351EN.01001901.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/19

---

Action brought on 29 July 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)

(Case T-563/14)

2014/C 351/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Dallas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1539/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1539/2013-2;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELITEDISPLAY’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 11 541 901

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014315EN.01006402.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/64

---

Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Établissement Amra/OHIM

(KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR)

(Case T-390/14)

2014/C 315/108

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 March 2014 in Case R 1511/2013-2 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 March 2014 in Case R 1511/2013-2 in its entirety;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The position mark, consisting of the lower spring portion of a sporting and exercising device and containing the word elements ‘KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR’ for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 26  494

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from 10-Q at
December  31,  2000  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                             1,985,989
<SECURITIES>                                       7,805,650
<RECEIVABLES>                                     60,223,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                       1,784,000
<INVENTORY>                                       20,844,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  92,092,914
<PP&E>                                           294,696,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                   121,519,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   324,688,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             39,325,144
<BONDS>                                          237,687,303
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        48,953,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     324,688,414
<SALES>                                           54,224,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 209,651,901
<CGS>                                             49,823,785
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    195,799,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     766,109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      60,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                14,657,478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (13,113,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (5,901,022)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (13,113,383)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (7,212,361)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0




</TABLE>
§ 884.6120 Assisted reproduction accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* Assisted reproduction accessories are a group of devices used during assisted reproduction procedures, in conjunction with assisted reproduction needles and/or assisted reproduction catheters, to aspirate, incubate, infuse, and/or maintain temperature. This generic type of device may include: ( 1 ) Powered aspiration pumps used to provide low flow, intermittent vacuum for the aspiration of eggs (ova).
( 2 ) Syringe pumps (powered or manual) used to activate a syringe to infuse or aspirate small volumes of fluid during assisted reproduction procedures.
( 3 ) Collection tube warmers, used to maintain the temperature of egg (oocyte) collection tubes at or near body temperature. A dish/plate/microscope stage warmer is a device used to maintain the temperature of the egg (oocyte) during manipulation.
( 4 ) Embryo incubators, used to store and preserve gametes and/or embryos at or near body temperature.
( 5 ) Cryopreservation instrumentation and devices, used to contain, freeze, and maintain gametes and/or embryos at an appropriate freezing temperature.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls) (design specifications, labeling requirements, and clinical testing). The device, when it is a simple embryo incubator with only temperature, gas, and humidity control; a syringe pump; a collection tube warmer; a dish/plate/microscope stage warmer; a controlled-rate cryopreservation freezer; or an assisted reproduction laminar flow workstation is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71816, Dec. 30, 2019; 85 FR 44188, July 22, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4440 Neurosurgical headrests. ( a ) *Identification.* A neurosurgical headrest is a device used to support the patient's head during a surgical procedure.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 882.9.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38808, July 25, 2001]
Order entered July 10, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00266
- CR BYRON WILSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18
- 56146
- Q



### O RDER The reporter’s record was filed April 22, 2019. Missing from the record are all of the exhibits, specifically the State’s Exhibits #1 (incident report), #2 (incident report), # 3 (affidavit), and #4 (DVD) as well as Defense Exhibit #1 (arrest report). We ORDER court reporter Karren Jones to file a supplemental reporter’s record containing true and correct viewable or playable copies of these exhibits within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Hutton Investors Futures Fund L.P. II (the‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                        |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership. |

/s/David J. Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

Date: November 14,2006

----
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1670 Ophthalmic isotope uptake probe. ( a ) *Identification.* An ophthalmic isotope uptake probe is an AC-powered device intended to measure, by a probe which is placed in close proximity to the eye, the uptake of a radioisotope (phosphorus 32) by tumors to detect tumor masses on, around, or within the eye.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.