alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
70

140

140

70

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

150

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

150

100

100

100

100

100

150

150

100

100

100

150

100

100

100

100

150

100

100

100

100

150

100

100

100

100

100

100

Barroso

Trap Papalote

del Norte

Pita West

Oil Field

Pita Oil

Field

Mota Bonita

Windmill

ElToro

Windmill

Jimmy

Windmill

La Becerra

Windmill

Cados

Negros

Windmill

Medio

Windmill

Sorillo

Windmill

Las Hormigas

Windmill

Las Avispas

Windmill

Old Barrosa

Windmill

Camp Vista

Windmill

San Juan

Windmill

Petroteros

Windmill

Las Liebras

Windmill

Caramayola

Windmill

La Sulfurosa

Windmill

El Azul

Windmill

Humble

Windmill

Number Nine

Windmill

Los Muertos

Windmill

Pita

Pens

La Pela

Windmill

Crudo

Windmill

La Mula

Windmill

Number One

Windmill

Patricio

Pasture

Los Muertos

Pasture

Pita

Camp

Falfurrias Flowella La Paloma

Ranch

Cage

Ranch

Falfurrias

SE Sarita SW

San

Tomas

Camp

Encino

FEET

FEET

1 110 000 FEET

98°00'

NQ

07' 98°

27°

30"

27°

2'

2'

07'

98° 5' 00'

NR

00'

NQ

NR

30"

98°07'

30" 30"

00'

27°

5'

27°

30"

07'

30"

2' 30"

5' 5'

30" 2'

16 930 000

1 140 000 FEET

16 890000

000mE 5

29

000m

29

5

29

5

000m

5

29

29

29

29

29

5

29

29

29

29

5 5

30

5 5

29

5

29

5

5

5

29

29

30

5

5 5

5

5

29

29

29

29

5

000m

29

29

5

29

90 98 99

89

91

92

96

99

98

90

91

92

97

97

87

92

99

93

E 98

91

N

89

90

96

94

94

93

88

94

89

97

92

00

90

00

87 93

88

89

93

95

88 94

N

98

95

87

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

TX 2798-111

FALFURRIAS SE, TX

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

FALFURRIAS SE QUADRANGLE

TEXAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14R

Imagery.................................................NAIP, January 2009

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2008

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 1995

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 26 ́

8 MILS

4° 57 ́

88 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14R

NQ

NR 30 00

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION • (800) 638-2772 • www.cpsc.gov • www.SaferProducts.gov

Crib Sheets 

Sheets in cribs or beds can sometimes be hazardous to babies. 

To prevent tragedies, parents and caretakers can take the following precautions to ensure a safer 

sleeping environment for their young children. 

 Make sure crib sheets fit snugly on a crib mattress and overlap the mattress so it cannot 

be dislodged by pulling on the corner of the sheet. 

 Never use an adult sheet on a crib mattress; it can come loose and present an 

entanglement hazard to young children. 

 Place a baby on his/her back on a firm, tight-fitting mattress in a crib meeting current 

safety standards. 

 Remove pillows, quilts, comforters and sheepskins from the crib. 

 

 

WARNING

Prevent suffocation or entanglement. 

Never use crib sheet unless it fits securely on crib mattress.

Publication 5137 022012
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive
Officer of Fortune Entertainment Corporation, that, to his knowledge, the
quarterly report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the company's financial
condition and results of operations.


May 20, 2005

/s/ Douglas R. Sanderson
Douglas R. Sanderson, Chief Executive Officer
#### § 65.59 Skill requirements.

An applicant for an aircraft dispatcher certificate must pass a practical test given by the Administrator, with respect to any one type of large aircraft used in air carrier operations. To pass the practical test for an aircraft dispatcher certificate, the applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate the objectives in the areas of operation specified in the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards (incorporated by reference, see § 65.23).

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1463; Amdt. No.65-64, 89 FR 22520, Apr. 1, 2024]
§ 414.19 Processing the initial application. ( a ) The FAA will initially screen an application to determine if the application is complete enough for the FAA to start the review.
( b ) After completing the initial screening, the FAA will inform the applicant in writing of one of the following: ( 1 ) The FAA accepts the application and will begin the reviews or evaluations required for a safety element approval determination under this part.
( 2 ) The FAA rejects the application because it is incomplete or indefinite, making initiation of the reviews or evaluations required for a safety element approval determination under this part inappropriate.
( c ) The written notice will state the reason(s) for rejection and corrective actions necessary for the application to be accepted. The FAA may return a rejected application to the applicant or may hold it until the applicant provides more information.
( d ) The applicant may withdraw, amend, or supplement an application any time before the FAA makes a final determination on the safety element approval application by making a written request to the Associate Administrator. If the applicant amends or supplements the initial application, the revised application must meet all the applicable requirements under this part.
Exhibit 10.1


 

November 6, 2009

 

Via Hand Delivery

Mr. Dan W. Matthias

Re:Effect of Cessation of Board Service Under Transition Agreement


Dear Dan:

Reference is hereby made to that certain Transition Agreement between you and the Company dated September 26, 2008 (the "Transition Agreement").  This letter will confirm your agreement not to seek re-election as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company ("Board") at the Company's 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.  In consideration for such agreement, the Company agrees for purposes of Section 2.1 of the Transition Agreement to treat you as though you had sought re-election to the Board, but nonetheless not been re-elected.  In all other respects, the Transition Agreement continues without change.  To confirm your agreement with the foregoing, please execute and date this letter in the space provided below and return the executed original to me.

Sincerely,

DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION

By: /s/ Edward M. Krell
Edward M. Krell

Chief Executive Officer

 














Agreed on this 6th day of November, 2009:

 

/s/ Dan W. Matthias

Dan W. Matthias
Exhibit 24.4


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 24th day of
February, 2005.



                                                     /s/James R. Jones
Exhibit 24.1


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  as amended,  an Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2006, as prescribed by said  Commission  pursuant to said Act
and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 21st day of
February, 2007.


                                                       /s/Andrea S. Christensen
§ 61.215 Ground instructor privileges. ( a ) A person who holds a basic ground instructor rating is authorized to provide— ( 1 ) Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for the issuance of a sport pilot certificate, recreational pilot certificate, private pilot certificate, or associated ratings under this part;
( 2 ) Ground training required for a sport pilot, recreational pilot, and private pilot flight review; and
( 3 ) A recommendation for a knowledge test required for the issuance of a sport pilot certificate, recreational pilot certificate, or private pilot certificate under this part.
( b ) A person who holds an advanced ground instructor rating is authorized to provide: ( 1 ) Ground training on the aeronautical knowledge areas required for the issuance of any certificate or rating under this part except for the aeronautical knowledge areas required for an instrument rating.
( 2 ) The ground training required for any flight review except for the training required for an instrument rating.
( 3 ) A recommendation for a knowledge test required for the issuance of any certificate or rating under this part except for an instrument rating.
( c ) A person who holds an instrument ground instructor rating is authorized to provide: ( 1 ) Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for the issuance of an instrument rating under this part;
( 2 ) Ground training required for an instrument proficiency check; and
( 3 ) A recommendation for a knowledge test required for the issuance of an instrument rating under this part.
( d ) A person who holds a ground instructor certificate is authorized, within the limitations of the ratings on the ground instructor certificate, to endorse the logbook or other training record of a person to whom the holder has provided the training or recommendation specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61-124, 74 FR 42562, Aug. 21, 2009]
#### Patrick J. O’Brien et al., Plaintiffs, v Occidental Chemical Corp. et al., Respondents. Law Firm of Paul William Beltz, P. C., Nonparty Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[698 NYS2d 199]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Same Memorandum as in *O’Brien v Occidental Chem. Corp.*([appeal No. 3] 266 AD2d 915 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Sanctions.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Balio, JJ.
#### THOMPSON, Trustee, v. GORDON, Adm’x.

No. 29382.

June 11, 1940.

*103 P. 2d 518.*

Thomas B. Pryor and W. L. Curtis, both of Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.

Bailey E. Bell, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

WELCH, V. C. J.

This case is brought by the same party and arose out of, the *411same accident as the case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Gordon, Adm’x, 186 Okla. 424, 98 P. 2d 39.

We have here the same fact situation existing and the same legal questions involved as in the case above cited. Therefore, we are of the view the case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Gordon, supra, is controlling here and requires a reversal.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions for the trial court to vacate the judgment rendered, and dismiss the action.

OSBORN, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 we.
 By:
    
    /s/ Lawrence D. Bain

Lawrence D. BainChief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Michael S. BrowneMichael S. BrowneChief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### CITY OF TUSCALOOSA v. SMALLWOOD. (Two Cases)

(Decided November 25, 1915.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

Brown & Ward, and Oliver, Verner & Rice, for appellant. Clarkson & Morisette, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### § 33.21 Engine cooling.

Engine design and construction must provide the necessary cooling under conditions in which the airplane is expected to operate.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo
F. Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III      
|Leo F. Wells, III          
|Principal Executive Officer
|August 8, 2007             



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams    
|Douglas P. Williams        
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 8, 2007
#### Talmadge HOWARD *v.*Pauline S. HOWARD

5-5829

477 S.W. 2d 838

Opinion delivered March 20, 1972

*Bailey, Trimble, Holt & Thomas,*for appellant.

*Spitzberg, Mitchell 6- Hays,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Talmadge Howard appeals from that portion of a divorce decree in favor of appellee Pauline S. Howard which awarded her $200 per month alimony and possession of the home owned by the entirety, and required him to make the monthly mortgage payments, including principal, interest, taxes and insurance, in the amount of $97.60.

The record shows that the parties had lived together as husband and wife for more than 30 years. They had three children, two of whom- were married and self sustaining. The other child, a girl age 20, was a student at Henderson College.

The husband testified that his gross monthly income, exclusive of an annual bonus, was $1,119J1 and that his take home pay was $850.00. His bonus' is based oh meeting company quotas. His last annual bonus was *190$1,217 with a net take home bonus of $843.77. In addition to his own personal expenses he spends approximately $2,000 per year on his daughter’s college education.

The wife testified that she had a gross income of $125 per week with a take home pay of approximately $450 per month. The wife also has some bonus income.^

We cannot say that the . chancellor erred in awarding appellee the possession of the family homestead so long as she remains unmarried and uses the same as her residence, *Schaefer*v. *Schaefer,*235 Ark. 870, 326 S. W. 2d 444 (1962). However it appears to us that the alimony award was excessive.

When the $200 per month alimony and the $97.60 house payment are added to the wife’s $450 per month income, she will have a total of $747.60 for living purposes. When the same amounts are subtracted from the husband’s $850 per month income, he will be left with only $552.40 per month for living expenses, from which he is paying the daughter’s college education. Thus we conclude that an award of alimony in the amount of $150 per month is adequate and that the wife should assume the mortgage payments on the homestead as long as she remains in possession.

An award of $250 is awarded to appellee to be applied on counsel fees.

Affirmed as modified.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-59825, effective July 24, 1998, File No.
333-66331, effective October 29, 1998, Amendment No. 1 thereto dated February
22, 1999, File No. 333-76527, effective April 19, 1999, File No. 333-79919,
effective June 3, 1999 and File No. 333-31330, effective February 29, 2000) of
BindView Development Corporation of our report dated January 28, 2002 relating
to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Form 10-K.


                                                /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Houston, Texas
March 28, 2002
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1161 CAF 11-02138 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ALAN V. NERBER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
LEIGH M. BUELL, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LEIGH E. ANDERSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO, FOR ANTHONY N.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Niagara County (John F. Batt, J.), entered September 2, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded petitioner sole custody of the parties’ child. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court.

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50490

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FLORENTINO NAJERA-DIAZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2231-ALL

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Florentino Najera-Diaz

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50490

2

28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.