alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Robert L. Winters et al.

*Joseph J. Fauliso,*in support of the petition.

*Richard W. Wood,*assistant prosecuting attorney, in opposition.

Submitted January 10

decided March 31, 1964

The petition by the defendants for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
39788.

#### JOHNSON et al. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MARIETTA.

Decided October 9, 1962.

*William H. Burke,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Edwards, Bentley, Awtrey ■& Bartlett, Fred E. Bartlett, Jr.,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The bill of exceptions shows that the verdict in the present case was rendered on March 29, 1962, while the record discloses that the verdict was rendered on March 15, 1962, although the judgment was not rendered on such verdict until March 29, 1962. On April 18, 1962 (thirty-four days after the verdict was rendered), a motion for new trial was filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court. *Held:*

1. Where there is a conflict between the bill of exceptions and the record, the record controls. *Smith v. A. A. Wood & Son Co.,*103 Ga. App. 802 (1) (120 SE2d 800); *Upshaw v. O’Bryant,*101 Ga. App. 781 (115 SE2d 591); *Atlantic Wholesalers, Inc. v. Deeb,*102 Ga. App. 625 (116 SE2d 880).

2. “Applications for a new trial . . . shall be filed within thirty days of the rendition of the verdict.” Ga. L. 1957, pp. 224, 235 *(Code Ann.*§ 70-301). The motion for new trial was filed too late to give the trial court jurisdiction to entertain it. *Hilt v. Young,*116 Ga. 708 (43 SE 76); *Crummey v. Armour Fertilizer Works,*68 Ga. App. 557 (23 SE2d 270); *Baker v. Jennings,*93 Ga. App. 778 (2) (92 SE2d 840); *Sikes v. Collins,*198 Ga. 829 (33 SE2d 13); *Peavy v. Peavy,*167 Ga. 219 (145 SE 55); *Keen v. Davis & Brandon,*141 Ga. 608 (81 SE 868). Since the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion for new trial and should have dismissed it, the order overruling it was not harmful to the movant and therefore was not error. *Crummey v. Armour Fertilizer Works,*supra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7280

JOHN HENRY SINGLETON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-04-191-5-BO)

Submitted: October 18, 2004 Decided: October 27, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Henry Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Henry Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

April 30, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on July 9, 2004.*

Because Singleton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz,
Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Partnership.









By:  /s/Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
	   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   August 14, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 291 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 291

   Tendering the thanks of the Senate to the Vice President for the 
  courteous, dignified, and impartial manner in which he has presided 
                 over the deliberations of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 1 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Tendering the thanks of the Senate to the Vice President for the 
  courteous, dignified, and impartial manner in which he has presided 
                 over the deliberations of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered to the 
Honorable Al Gore, Vice President of the United States and President of 
the Senate, for the courteous, dignified, and impartial manner in which 
he has presided over its deliberations during the second session of the 
One Hundred Third Congress.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Daniel Dechon ELLIS, also known as J.D., Appellant.

No. 01-3957.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2002.

Decided June 7, 2002.

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Ellis pleaded guilty to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2. The district court,1 after denying Ellis a 2-level acceptanee-of-responsibility reduction, sentenced him to 38 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Ellis argues that the district court erred in denying him the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

The district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction. *See United States v. Perez,*270 F.3d 737, 739 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1336, 152 L.Ed.2d 241 (2002). The evidence at sentencing showed that after his arrest Ellis absconded from a halfway house, attempted to break into his former girlfriend’s residence, made threatening phone calls to her from jail, and received an obstruction-of-justice en*834hancement. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); *United States v. Martinez,*234 F.3d 1047, 1048 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam); *United States v. Ngo,*132 F.3d 1231, 1233 (8th Cir.1997).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 297/10)

----

(1)   With the exception of the shipbuilding sector and of other sectors subject to special rules in regulations and directives governing all state aid within the sector.

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-187]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection; Comment 
Request

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program 
helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired 
format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed 
information collection to evaluate methods of assessing student 
learning arts education programs. A copy of the current information 
collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed 
below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
address section below on or before March 5, 2009. The NEA is 
particularly interested in comments which:
    <bullet> Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    <bullet> Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity 
of the methodology and assumptions used;
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    <bullet> Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submissions of responses.

ADDRESSES: Sarah Cunningham, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 703, Washington, DC 20506-0001, 
telephone (202) 682-5515 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 
682-5002.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
 [FR Doc. E9-187 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
##### 



AMENDED AND RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 THIS
AGREEMENT
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. EMPLOYMENT.
 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. rd rd




---



##### 



3. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS.
 3.1 BASE SALARY.
 3.2 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
 3.3 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION.
 3.4 BUSINESS EXPENSES.
 3.5 LEAVE
 3.6 OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS.
 3.7 GENERAL.
 4. EXTENT OF SERVICE.
 2




---



##### 



5. DEATH.
 6. DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE.
 6.1 NOTICE AND DETERMINATION OF CAUSE
  3




---



##### 



6.2 SUSPENSION; FINAL DISCHARGE.
 6.3 EFFECT OF TERMINATION FOR CAUSE.
 7. DISABILITY.
 4




---



##### 



8. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE
 9. VOLUNTARY TERMINATION BY EMPLOYEE.
 10. CHANGE IN CONTROL.
 10.1 DEFINITION OF CHANGE IN CONTROL.
   5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



10.2 TERMINATION PAYMENT.
    10.3 BENEFIT CONTINUATION.
 7




---



##### 



10.4 OTHER TERMINATION.
 8




---



##### 



11. LIMITATION OF BENEFITS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
 12. NO MITIGATION
 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
 13.1 CONFLICTING AGREEMENTS.
 9




---



##### 



13.2 WITHHOLDING.
 13.3 ARBITRATION.
 13.4 INDEMNIFICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES.
 13.5 ASSIGNMENT; SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, ETC.
   10




---



##### 



13.6 ENFORCEABILITY.
 13.7 REDUCTIONS; REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
 13.8 WAIVER.
 13.9 NOTICES.
 13.10 AMENDMENT.
 11




---



##### 



13.11 NO EFFECT ON LENGTH OF SERVICE.
 13.12 SOURCE OF PAYMENTS
 13.13 ENTIRE AGREEMENT; EFFECT ON PRIOR AGREEMENTS.
 13.14 COUNTERPARTS AND FACSIMILE SIGNATURES.
 13.15 GOVERNING LAW.
 14. EFFECT OF CODE SECTION 409A.
 12




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
  ATTEST:

    
    /s/ Diane M. Deskins
    

    COMMUNITY BANK OF TRI-COUNTY/s/ Michael L.
MiddletonMichael L.
MiddletonPresident
  ATTEST:

    
    /s/ Diane M. Deskins
    

    TRI-COUNTY FINANCIALCORPORATION (As Guarantor)/s/ Michael L.
MiddletonMichael L.
MiddletonPresident
  WITNESS:

    
    /s/ Diane M. Deskins
    

    EMPLOYEE/s/
Gregory C. CockerhamGregory C. Cockerham
State of California

Bureau of Real Estate

Real Estate Salesperson License

Identification Number: 01148857

Edward James Greenshields

RESTRICTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

BROKER AFFILIATION

BEE MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENTS

INC

7245 JOSHUA LN #B

YUCCA VALLEY, CA 92284

Issued: August 20, 2014 Expires: August 19, 2018

Real Estate Commissioner
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

597 

KA 14-01246 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SCOTT A. KOPPER, ALSO KNOWN AS SCOTT KOPPER, ALSO 

KNOWN AS SCOTT ANTHONY KOPPER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered June 23, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law 

§ 120.05 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, he knowingly,

voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and his

valid waiver forecloses his challenge to the severity of the sentence

(see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; see generally People v Lococo,

92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). County Court

advised defendant at the time of the waiver of the potential maximum

term of incarceration, and thus the waiver encompasses defendant’s

present challenge to the severity of the sentence (see Lococo, 92 NY2d

at 827).

Entered: June 17, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,160
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         113,158
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,083
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     29,873
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        124,075
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,456
<DEPOSITS>                                     141,585
<SHORT-TERM>                                    18,743
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                950
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,052
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 176,456
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,810
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,578
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   364
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,752
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,535
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,286
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,466
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      609
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,156
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,409
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.31
<LOANS-NON>                                         30
<LOANS-PAST>                                       774
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,332
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      505
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,436
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,436
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129698 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129698 COA: 260238 Oakland CC: 2001-178246-FC RICKY L. NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 23, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1219 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.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         902,886
<SECURITIES>                                 3,843,264
<RECEIVABLES>                                  691,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (22,500)
<INVENTORY>                                    887,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,415,335
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,678,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          401,051
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,913
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,678,720
<SALES>                                        820,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               978,202
<CGS>                                        1,859,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,930,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               378,542<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                53,279
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,275,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,487,853)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.15)
<FN>
<F1>Other expense is 212,500 dividend on Preferred Stock and 166,042 legal expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 202 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 202

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that United States companies 
should acquire technology that was developed by United States companies 
    from those companies instead of from their overseas competitors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 1996

     Mr. Franks of Connecticut submitted the following concurrent 
      resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that United States companies 
should acquire technology that was developed by United States companies 
    from those companies instead of from their overseas competitors.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that, when a United States company 
acquires technology that has been developed by other United States 
companies with the assistance of taxpayer dollars, that company should 
acquire the technology from the company that developed it instead of 
from overseas sources, so long as the United States source is offering 
a comparable product in terms of both performance and cost.
                                 <all>
```
# G 

# U 

# L 

# F 

# O 

# F 

# M 

# E 

# X 

# I 

# C 

# O P

A

C

I

F

I

C

O

C

E

A

N A T L A N T I C

O C E A N 

## L a k e S

u p

e r i o r

L a k e M i c h i g a n 

### L a k

e H

u r o n

L a k e E

r 

### i 

### e O n t a r i o

L a 

### k 

### e



### G U

L F O

F A

L A S K A 

## P 

## A 

## C



## I 

## F



## I 

## C 

## O 

## C 

## E 

## A 

## N B 

### E 

### R 

### I 

### N 

### G 

### S



### E 

### A 

### A R C T I C O C E A N

R U S S I

A

C A

N A D A 

### P A C

I F I C O C E A N 

# M E X

I C O 

# C 

# A 

# N 

# A 

# D 

# A

C U B A T



## H



## E 

## B 

# A



# H



# A



# M



# A



# S



# T he National Atlas of the United States of America U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey 

# Wher e W e Ar e 

# national atlas .go v TM



# O **R**

**states(u)3.pdf IN TERIOR-GEOL**  **OGICAL SUR VE**  **Y , RES**  **T ON,**  **VIRGINIA-20 04**  P A C I F I C O C E A N A T L A N T I C

O C E A N



### 200 mi 0

200 km 0 100 mi 0

100 km 0

300 mi 0

300 km 200 0 100 100 200 

# ST A TES

unlabeled