alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 11

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 61 FR 18052, April 24, 1996.

#### § 11.5 What is a notice of proposed rulemaking?

A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes FAA's specific regulatory changes for public comment and contains supporting information. It includes proposed regulatory text.
#### § 119.45 [Reserved]
§ 339.1 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1819 (Tenth), 5412(b)(2)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to implement the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4129).
( c ) *Scope.* This part, except for §§ 339.6 and 339.8, applies to loans secured by buildings or mobile homes located or to be located in areas determined by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have special flood hazards. Sections 339.6 and 339.8 apply to loans secured by buildings or mobile homes, regardless of location.
This .zip file contains graphic files (in .png format) of each chart and graph in the Economic Research Service report "Economics of Antibiotic Use in U.S. Livestock Production", ERR-200, published in November 2015. The content and context of these files is as of the publication date of the report. After time, the material may not reflect the current ERS program of work, may be outdated, and/or superseded, so please visit the website to obtain the latest information: www.ers.usda.gov. Any reuse of these images should include attribution to "Economic Research Service/USDA."The following inventory lists each of the files in this folder.File name		Description(Fig-01.png)		Figure 1 - Percentage of nontyphoidal salmonella isolates from food animals with no resistance to 17 antibiotics, 1999-2010, by type of food animal(Fig-02.png)		Figure 2 - Consumption of antimicrobial agent use in all types of animals in Denmark and production of pork, 1990-2012, with dates of policy actions(Fig-03.png)		Figure 3 - Phases of pork production and antibiotic use(Fig-04.png)		Figure 4 - Percentage of nursery-age hogs sold or removed from operations that administered antibiotics via feed or water, by purpose, 2004 and 2009(Fig-05.png)		Figure 5 - Percentage of finishing hogs sold or removed from operations that administered antibiotics via feed or water, by purpose, 2004 and 2009(Fig-06.png)		Figure 6 - Phases of broiler production and antibiotic use(Fig-07.png)		Figure 7 - Birds raised by U.S. contract broiler producers without antibiotics in food or water �(except in cases of illness), 2006 and 2011(Fig-08.png)		Figure 8 - Beef cow life cycle and use of antibiotics in stages of production(Fig-09.png)		Figure 9 - Dairy cow life cycle and use of antibiotics in stages of production(Fig-10.png)		Figure 10 - Supply and demand for meat(Fig-11.png)		Figure 11 - Distribution of simulation outcomes for the pork market (Fig-12.png)		Figure 12 - Distribution of simulation outcomes for the chicken market(Appendix-B1.png)	Appendix figure B1 - Supply and demand for meat(Appendix-B2.png)	Appendix figure B2 - Supply and demand for meat, users versus nonusers of production-purpose antibiotics
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                          ALDILA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Twelve months ended
                                                                                     December 31,
                                                                            -------------------------------
                                                                              2000       1999        1998
                                                                            --------   --------    --------
<S>                                                                           <C>       <C>          <C>
BASIC:
Net income (loss)                                                             $3,217    $(2,105)     $2,799

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                          15,462     15,462      15,452
                                                                            --------   --------    --------

Net income (loss) per common share                                             $0.21     $(0.14)      $0.18
                                                                            ========   ========    ========

ASSUMING DILUTION:
Net income (loss)                                                             $3,217    $(2,105)     $2,799

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                          15,462     15,462      15,452

The number of shares resulting from the assumed exercise of stock options
reduced by the number of shares which could have been purchased with the
proceeds from such exercise, using the average
market price during the period                                                   142         --          67
                                                                            --------   --------    --------

Weighted average number of common and
   common equivalent shares                                                   15,604     15,462      15,519
                                                                            --------   --------    --------

Net income (loss) per common share, assuming dilution                          $0.21     $(0.14)      $0.18
                                                                            ========   ========    ========
</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Jonathan Alvarado, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered October 21, 2015, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered October 21, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>Application by appellant's counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (<i>see Anders v California</i>, 386 U.S. 738 [1967]; <i>People v Saunders</i>, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders</i>, and, upon an independent review of the record, agree that there is no valid appealable issue that could be raised on appeal.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: December 18, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### §§ 628.54-628.60 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6772
BOBBY SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the South CarolinaDepartment of Corrections; MICHAEL R. NICKERSON, Correctional Officer; LINDA YARBOROUGH, Correctional Officer, Property Control; ISAAC BOOKER, Grievance Clerk; THOMAS W. BAKER, Administrative Assistant for D.C.I., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3011-3-20BC) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Moore , No. CA-96- 3011-3-20BC (D.S.C. May 9, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE ex rel. DANIEL RYAN, Collector, Respondent, v. JAMES A. GRAY et al., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

November 12, 1912.

State ex rel. Ryan v. Coles, *ante,*followed.

Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common *Pleas.*— Ron. *David R. Eby,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Smoot & Cooley*for appellants.

*D. A. Rouner*and *F. R. McCullough*for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

Tbis is a suit on a taxbill. Tbe finding and judgment were for plaintiff and defendant prosecutes tbe appeal. Tbe taxbill involved was issued under tbe drainage statutes in part compensation for wort and labor performed in constructing a system of drainage in Knox county under a contract with a drainage district organized under tbe statutes.

Tbe questions presented are identical with those involved in State ex rel. Daniel Ryan, Collector, etc., v. W. Coles et al., decided to-day, and tbe disposition of tbis case depends in all respects upon that one. Tbe whole.matter is fully discussed in tbe opinion in tbe case above referred to, and for tbe reasons there given, tbis judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

*Reynolds, P. J.,*and *Caulfield, J.,*concur.
# Official Journal L 5/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 5 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 628 January 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 5

English edition

Legislation

Volume 628 January 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/23 of 7 January 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/23 of 7 January 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### The Standard Advertising Co., Appellant, *v.*Carl Gutman, et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, first district, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the defendants.

Benjamin *&*Loeser, for appellant.

Horwitz *&*Samuels, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

We think that the evidence in this case supports but one conclusion, namely, that the books which were delivered to the defendants conform in all essential respects to the sample, and that the latter had no right to reject them. Both the sample *760and one of the books which were supplied by the plaintiff are before us as exhibits annexed to the return, and a comparison of the two, taking into account the necessary changes for which the order given by the defendants for the books in question provided, shows a substantial compliance with the requirements of such order.

The defendants upon the trial laid great stress upon the claim that the leather covering of the books delivered was of an inferior quality to that exhibited by the sample, and produced two alleged experts to testify upon this subject, neither of whom, however, bore out this claim. Indeed, one of them testified that the leather was in both cases of the same quality.

The claim on the part of the defendants that the calendar, which was to be attached to the outside of the back cover of the books, was upside down, is answered by the plaintiff’s statement that that was the proper way to place it, considering the nature- and use of the books, and there is nothing to show that this contention is not correct. That matter cannot be determined by reference to the sample, because the sample book had no calendar whatsoever. That feature of the book was provided for in the written order, but how it was to be placed was in no way a matter of specification. The other objections' were but feebly mentioned, and in our opinion were insufficient.

For the reasons above stated, we think that the judgment dismissing the complaint was erroneous, and that a new trial should be had.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Peter J. Bradford, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (“Registrant”); 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 22, 2005  /s/ Peter J. Bradford     Peter J. Bradford  President and Chief Executive Officer
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24027-7 Filed:04/18/23 Entered:04/19/23 10:16:46 D

Envelope Page 1 of 1
Elk

Range Distribution

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

Map 18

Roundup

Harlowton

T7N

Pompeys

 Pillar

T Big Timber 1N

Billings

T2S

Columbus

Bridger

T8S

R18E R29E Montana

R104W R93W Wyoming

T

57N

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings

Field 

Office

Ü

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

Source Data: Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks

Map scale 1:900,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of

Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Legend

Public Lands 

Survey System

^ Towns

Highway

Interstate

Private 

National Park 

Service

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest

Service

Division of State Lands

Bureau of Reclamation

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of

Land Management

State Border

Planning Area Boundary

Elk Range

 Distribution

General Winter

General
#### Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. D. P. Outlaw, *Defendant in Error.*Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. W. Cotton and E. M. Cotton, as co-partners under the firm name and style of Cotton Bros., *Defendants in Error.*Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. C. J. Seay, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed February 23, 1923.

These are actions to recover the value of property alleged to have been destroyed by fire which negligently escaped from a locomotive being run and operated by the defendant railway company. The injury sustained having resulted from one of the fires and the questions on each of the several writs of error being in all material respects the same as in that case, the judgments are affirmed upon the authority of Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Company v. Welch, 85 Fla. 203, 95 South. Rep. 570.

*209Writs of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County; C. L. Wilson, Judge.’

Affirmed.

*Carter, Campbell*& *Carter,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Paul Carter*and *E. C. Welch,*for Defendants in Error.

West, J.

These cases were tried at the same time by one jury. They are actions by the respective plaintiffs, defendants in errpr here, against the defendant, plaintiff in error in each case, to recover the value of property of the several plaintiffs destroyed at Cottondale in Jackson County on the 25th day of March, 1921, by fire alleged to have been negligently set out by the defendant railway company. The pleadings in the three cases, with the exception of parties plaintiff, property destroyed and nonessential details, are the same. The negligence alleged consisted in defendant’s failure to properly equip, repair and operate with due care its locomotives, as a'result of which sparks and live coals were emitted from one of them and the fire transmitted and communicated thereby to property of each of the several plaintiffs igniting and destroying same. Pleas of not guilty and denying damage to plaintiffs were filed by defendant. The verdict in each case was for plaintiff. To review the judgments entered writs of error were taken.

No harmful error of procedure is made to appear. The instructions given by the trial court, made grounds of the motions for new trials, the overruling of which is assigned as error in each case, are not, in view of the negligence al•leged, amenable to the criticism that they are charges on *210the facts. The charges were hypotheeized upon evidence tending to prove facts alleged as constituting negligence.

The injury sustained having resulted from the same fire and the questions on these several writs of error being in all material respects the same as in that ease, the judgments are affirmed upon the authority of Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co. v. Welch, 85 Fla. 203, 95 South. Rep. 570.

Affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur.
Exhibit C

RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF FEBRUARY 11, 2022, BY 

AND AMONG (I) WHITEFISH ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, (II) PREPA, AND (II) THE 

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, AS TITLE

III REPRESENTATIVE OF PREPA

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23631-3 Filed:02/27/23 Entered:02/27/23 00:24:23 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 1 of 18
















Execution Copy

16 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement, effective as of 

the latest date set forth below.

FOR WHITEFISH ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC:

_______ _________________ 

Name: 

Title: Chief Executive Officer

DATED: ________________ ___

FOR PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY:

_______________________________________ 

Name: 

Title: 

DATED: _______________________________

FOR FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO: 

_______________________________________ 

Name: Natalie A. Jaresko 

Title: Executive Director

DATED: __2/11/22_______________________

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23631-3 Filed:02/27/23 Entered:02/27/23 00:24:23 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 18 of 18
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3648

For the relief of Alzoubi Muhammed. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Alzoubi Muhammed.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALZOUBI 

4 MUHAMMED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Alzoubi Muhammed shall be eligible for issuance of 

8 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 

9 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 

10 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 

11 under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status 

12 to lawful permanent resident. 
2

•HR 3648 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Alzoubi 

2 Muhammed enters the United States before the filing 

3 deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be considered 

4 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other5 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 

6 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Alzoubi Muhammed, the Secretary of State shall 

16 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur17 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im18 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

22 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

23 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3

•HR 3648 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Alzoubi Muhammed shall 

2 not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 

3 privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 

4 Act.

Æ