alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                         3765203                 3765203
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2792405                 2792405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1099548                 1099548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           295723                  295723
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         11863                   11863
<OTHER-SE>                                      716186                  716186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1099548                 1099548
<SALES>                                          41733                   78952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 41733                   78952
<CGS>                                            29839                   73749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    29839                   73749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                165110                 1983741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                    2008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (153216)               (1980546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (153216)               (1980546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (153216)               (1980546)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)                   (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)                   (.23)


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KIRLEW BROWN

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2028

LT Case No. 2015

- DR

- 025610

KELLY MCEACHERN

,

Appellee

. ____________________________/

Decision filed March 28, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

f or Brevard County,

Kathryn M. Speicher , Judge.

Kirlew Brown

, Palm Bay

, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., SOUD and MACIVER

, JJ., concur.
# Appendix L.6

Proposed BART ExemptionsBART Related Documentation Appendix L.6 – 1

Regional Haze SIP for NC Class I Areas December 17, 2007 NCDAQ letter to State of Tenness ee on proposed BART exemptions ...........................................2

NCDAQ letter to State of Georgi a on proposed BART exemptions...............................................6

NCDAQ letter to State of Virginia on proposed BART exemptions.............................................10

NCDAQ letter to State of South Caro lina on proposed BART exemptions..................................14

Public Notice for proposed BART exemptions (06/14/2006) .......................................................18

Blue Ridge Environmental De fense League comments on proposed BART exemptions.............20

Blue Ridge Environmental De fense League comments on proposed BART exemptions.............26

NCDAQ letter to State of Georgia on pr oposed BART exemptions, second round......................27

NCDAQ letter to State of West Virginia on proposed BART exemption, second round ............30

NCDAQ letter to State of South Carolina on proposed BART exemptions, second round .........33

NCDAQ letter to State of Virginia on proposed BART exemptions, second round ....................36

NCDAQ letter to State of Tennessee on pr oposed BART exemptions, second round .................39

Public Notice for proposed BART exemptions (08/24/2007) ......................................................42

North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reducti on Network (NCWARN) Comments on proposed

BART exemptions ............................................................................................................... .........44

NCDAQ response to NCWARN comments on proposed BART exemptions .............................46
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT
JONATHAN GREEN, Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-1398 September 3, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Mary M. Handsel, Judge. Jonathan Green, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Brooks , 890 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); State v. Gutierrez, 10 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). BLACK, SLEET, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7845 

To designate the Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia as 

the ‘‘Donald J. Trump International Airport’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2024 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER (for himself, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. OGLES, Mr. 

FLEISCHMANN, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, and Mr. NEHLS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Washington Dulles International Airport 

in Virginia as the ‘‘Donald J. Trump International Airport’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DONALD J. TRUMP INTER4 NATIONAL AIRPORT. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Washington Dulles Inter6 national Airport in Virginia shall after the date of the en7 actment of this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Don8 ald J. Trump International Airport’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7845 IH

1 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula2 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the airport referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be considered to be a reference to the Donald J. Trump 

5 International Airport. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4830 Absorbable surgical gut suture. ( a ) *Identification.* An absorbable surgical gut suture, both plain and chromic, is an absorbable, sterile, flexible thread prepared from either the serosal connective tissue layer of beef (bovine) or the submucosal fibrous tissue of sheep (ovine) intestine, and is intended for use in soft tissue approximation.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Surgical Sutures; Guidance for Industry and FDA.” See § 878.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[54 FR 50738, Dec. 11, 1989, as amended at 68 FR 32984, June 3, 2003]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

§ 1.408A-1 Roth IRAs in general. This section sets forth the following questions and answers that discuss the background and general features of Roth IRAs: Q-1 . What is a Roth IRA?
A-1 . ( a ) A Roth IRA is a new type of individual retirement plan that individuals can use, beginning in 1998. Roth IRAs are described in section 408A, which was added by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA 97), Public Law 105-34 (111 Stat. 788).
( b ) Roth IRAs are treated like traditional IRAs except where the Internal Revenue Code specifies different treatment. For example, aggregate contributions (other than by a conversion or other rollover) to all an individual's Roth IRAs are not permitted to exceed $2,000 for a taxable year. Further, income earned on funds held in a Roth IRA is generally not taxable. Similarly, the rules of section 408(e), such as the loss of exemption of the account where the owner engages in a prohibited transaction, apply to Roth IRAs in the same manner as to traditional IRAs.
Q-2 . What are the significant differences between traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs?
A-2 . There are several significant differences between traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs under the Internal Revenue Code. For example, eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA is subject to special modified AGI (adjusted gross income) limits; contributions to a Roth IRA are never deductible; qualified distributions from a Roth IRA are not includible in gross income; the required minimum distribution rules under section 408(a)(6) and (b)(3) (which generally incorporate the provisions of section 401(a)(9)) do not apply to a Roth IRA during the lifetime of the owner; and contributions to a Roth IRA can be made after the owner has attained age 701 ⁄ 2.
[T.D. 8816, 64 FR 5601, Feb. 4, 1999]
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

52) ll-B-27 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:53 AM Sheet 52 of 276 
P.2 

The Administrative Record noted that this item was from a 

memorandum from Sally Farrel, EPA, SSCD to file: Port Washington 

Facilities; Cost of Renovation Work at Affected Facilities. No 

date was given. 
P.3 

r

 J. \§^^m ti'40'Oi, 

JT-B'Q.7 

Port Washington Facilities;! ColsjfcioiHReriovation Work at the Affected Facilities 

Table 1. Comparison of Updated Costs of Adjusted Basis 

to Annual and Total Renovation Costs (Rounded to Thousand $) 

Unit 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5%* of Adjusted 

UPDATED Basis 

2,352 

1,732 

1,703 

1,921 

Highest 

Annual 

Cost of 

Renovation 

2,165 

1,700 

1,700 

1,798 ' 

5% Of 

Basis 

Exceeded? 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Total 

Cost of 

Renovation 

3,577 

7,407 

7,065 

6,252 

5% of 

Basis 

Exceeded? 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

Table 2. Comparison of Original Costs of Adjusted Basis to 

Annual and Total Renovation Costs (Rounded to Thousand $) 

Unit 5% of Adjusted 

No. ORIGINAL Basis 

1 

2 

3 

4 

169 

149 

212 

251 

Highest 

Annual 

Cost of 

Renovation 

2,165 

1,700 

1,700 

1,798 

5% Of 

Basis 

Exceeded? 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

Total 

Cost of 

Renovation 

3,577 

7,407 

7,065 

6,252 

5% Of 

Basis 

Exceeded? 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

Adjusted costs include the cost of additions, reflect 

retirements, and are exclusive of depreciation. 

5% is the annual asset repair allowance percentage for 

electric utility steam generating units.
Searched for **http://www.nbrc.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nbrc.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 92

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 26, 1993

Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the month of October 1993 as ‘‘National Down

Syndrome Awareness Month’’.

Whereas advancements in education, research, and public

awareness are continuing to improve the quality of life

for people with Down syndrome;

Whereas approximately 5,000 children are born with Down

syndrome annually in the United States;

Whereas as ignorance, prejudices, myths, and stereotypes regarding Down syndrome can be overcome only through

increased awareness and education;

Whereas through the efforts of concerned physicians, teachers, parent groups, and the National Down Syndrome Society, programs are being established to educate the parents of individuals with Down syndrome, to include people with Down syndrome in all school programs, to provide vocational training for individuals with Down syndrome in preparation for entering the work force, and to
2

•SJ 92 RFH

prepare young adults with Down syndrome for independent living in the community;

Whereas the television medium has greatly augmented such

efforts by casting actors with Down syndrome and by offering programming that demonstrates to hundreds of

thousands of viewers in a positive and educational manner the everyday, personal, and family effects of living

with Down syndrome;

Whereas advancements in research are improving health care

and offering a brighter outlook for individuals born with

Down syndrome; and

Whereas the many people with Down syndrome who attend

regular schools, play on Little League teams, work in

corporations and businesses both large and small, and

volunteer in the community demonstrate daily the success

that people with Down syndrome are able to achieve:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the month of October 1993 is designated as ‘‘Na4 tional Down Syndrome Awareness Month’’. The President

5 is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling

6 upon the people of the United States to observe this month

7 with the appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the Senate July 23 (legislative day, June

30), 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133913 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133913 COA: 272950 Kent CC: 01-010775-FC RONALD CLEAVE DOUGLAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 18, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
#### § 1.401-8 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MAURICE HUDSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 129 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2019, the Emergency Unopposed 

Application for Bail Pending Appeal from Revocation of Probation Upon Technical 

Violation of Probation (Failure to Pay Court Costs) is GRANTED. See Pa.R.A.P. 1762 

(providing for appellate review of a bail determination); see also Pa.R.A.P. 3315 

(cautioning that “routine reapplications” per Chapter 17 are not invited in this Court; further 

explaining that this Court’s review of an intermediate court’s order is warranted only when 

there has been an “egregious error” indicating a need for an exercise of extraordinary 

jurisdiction).

Petitioner is to be released on unsecured bail, on conditions similar or identical to 

those governing his probation prior to February 12, 2019, pending a decision on his 

appeal to the Superior Court.
#### Ducci Electric Company, Inc. *v.*Public Utilities Commission Connecticut Television, Inc. *v.*Public Utilities Commission New Haven TV Cable Company, Inc. *v.*Public Utilities Commission

*Joseph P. Cooney,*for the TelePrompTer Corporation of New York in each case.

*John L. Collins,*for Community Television Systems Inc. in the second and third cases.

*John K. Jepson,*assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant) in each case.

*Alexander M. Hart,*for the appellant (plaintiff) in the first case.

*Charles W. Page,*for the appellant (plaintiff) in the second case.

*Herbert L. Emanuelson, Jr.,*for the appellant (plaintiff) in the third case.

Argued January 7

decided January 7, 1969

The motion by TelePrompTer Corporation of New York to dismiss the appeal in the first case from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.

The motions by Community Television Systems Inc. to dismiss the appeals in the second and third cases from the Superior Court in Hartford County are denied.
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6210 Sharps needle destruction device. ( a ) *Identification.* A sharps needle destruction device is a prescription device that is intended to destroy needles or sharps used for medical purposes by incineration or mechanical means.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Performance testing must demonstrate the following during operation of the device: ( i ) The device safely contains or ventilates aerosols or fumes from device operation.
( ii ) Excessive heat or sparks are not generated that may injure users or patients.
( iii ) Simulated use testing must demonstrate sharps and/or needles are completely destroyed using a range of types and sizes of sharps sufficient to represent actual use.
( iv ) Simulated use testing must demonstrate that the device is physically stable on the surface for which it is intended to be mounted to ensure the risk of harm to the patient/user as a result of the device falling is minimized.
( 2 ) Validation of cleaning and disinfection instructions must demonstrate that the device can be safely and effectively reprocessed after use per the recommended cleaning and disinfection protocol in the instructions for use.
( 3 ) Analysis and/or testing must validate electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety, including the safety of any battery used in the device, under conditions which are consistent with the intended environment of device use.
( 4 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 5 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) A clear description of the device and its technological features;
( ii ) How the device is to be used, including validated cleaning and disinfection instructions;
( iii ) Relevant precautions and warnings based on performance and in-use testing to ensure proper use of the device; and
( iv ) Instructions to install device in adequately ventilated area and stable area.
[83 FR 19628, May 4, 2018]
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Seismic seiches from the March 1964 Alaska earthquake: 
Chapter E in The Alaska earthquake, March 27, 1964: effects on hydrologic 
regimen

#### Professional Paper 544-E

###### This report is Chapter E in The Alaska earthquake, March 27, 1964: 
effects on hydrologic regimen.  For more information, see: Professional Paper 544.

Tweet


#### Links

- More information: **USGS 
  Index Page**                                (html)
- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plate: **Plate 1**                                
  (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Study Area



#### Additional publication details

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 here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp544E 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: September 18, 
2013 15:29:16
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn: Robert Castle / Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6th Floor         | 301 Bellevue Parkway, 3rd Floor |
| Jersey City, NJ 07311                | Wilmington, DE 19809 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Diane Moser                    | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 500 Woodward Ave |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | Mail code:  MI-01-20-TRES |
|                                            | Detroit, MI 48226 |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2 |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller & Chief Accounting Officer |
|   |   |