alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. REYNOLDS S. COWDEN v. CHARLES G. MILLER and Others.1

October 21, 1896.

Nos. 10,202 — (63).

Constitution — Employment of Veterans.

Laws 1887, c. 149 (G. S. 1894, § 8041), entitled “An act giving preference in appointment and employment to honorably discharged Union soldiers and sailors,” *held*constitutional.

Petition by relator to the district court for St. Louis county for a peremptory writ of mandamus to be issued to defendants Charles G. Miller and others, as the board of county commissioners of St. Louis county, directing them to remove defendant William Haycraft from the position of fireman of the county court house of said county and to appoint relator thereto. From a judgment granting the relief *91sought, entered in pursuance of the findings and order of Morris, *J.r*defendants appealed.

Affirmed.

*Geo. E. Arbury,*for appellants.

*White da MbEeon,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 63 N. W. 732.

MITCHELL, J.

The only question raised on this appeal is the constitutionality of Laws 1887, c. 149 (G. S. 1894, § 8041), which provides: “That in every public department and upon all the public works of the state of Minnesota, and the counties, towns, cities and villages thereof, honorably discharged Union soldiers and sailors, who-are properly qualified, shall be preferred for appointment and employment,” etc. The county attorney states that he was directed by the county board to take this appeal in order to get the opinion of this court as to the constitutionality of this act, but he suggests no reason why the act is unconstitutional. On the contrary, he admits in his brief that similar statutes have been held valid in other states. No provision of the constitution occurs to us with which the-act conflicts. We therefore affirm the action of the trial court in holding the act constitutional.

Other questions discussed by counsel for the respondent, as to the-construction of the act and as to the remedy in case of a refusal to comply with its provisions, not being raised by the appellants,, are not considered.

Judgment affirmed.
### Geology and ground-water conditions in the Wilmington-Reading area, Massachusetts

By: John Augustus BakerH.G. HealyO. M. Hackett

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1694

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                      81,227,099
<SECURITIES>                                18,675,840
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,320,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,172,273
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           121,638,727
<PP&E>                                       5,879,440
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,195,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             186,037,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,852,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,552
<OTHER-SE>                                 146,396,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               186,037,611
<SALES>                                     40,192,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            72,983,425
<CGS>                                        1,249,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,681,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             27,972,985
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,110,947
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,862,038
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,862,038
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6318
TYRONE CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-265-JFM, CR-92-293-JFM) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for joinder of a party and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motionto set aside a judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clark v. United States , Nos. CR-92-293-JFM; CA-95-265-JFM (D. Md. Jan 31, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,335]


Calvin Klein New York, NY; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on 
March 30, 2000, applicable to workers of Calvin Klein, New York, New 
York. The notice was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 
2000 (FR 65 21474).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce 
women's sportswear. New findings show that there was a previous 
certification, TA-W-33,830, issued on March 10, 2000, for workers of 
Calvin Klein, New York, New York who were engaged in employment related 
to the production of women's sportswear. That certification expired 
March 10, 2000. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the 
certification is being amended to change the impact date from February 
1, 1999 to March 11, 2000, for workers of the subject firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,335 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Calvin Klein, New York, New York who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 11, 
2000 through March 30, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of May 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-12770 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 July 2004

(2004/C 185/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### § 2520.104-1 General.

The administrator of an employee benefit plan covered by part 1 of title I of the Act must file reports and additional information with the Secretary of Labor, and disclose reports, statements, and documents to plan participants and to beneficiaries receiving benefits from the plan. The regulations contained in this subpart are applicable to both the reporting and disclosure requirements of part 1 of title I of the Act. Regulations concerning only a plan administrator's duty of reporting to the Secretary of Labor are set forth in subpart E of this part, and those applicable only to the duty of disclosure to participants and beneficiaries are set forth in subpart F of this part.

[41 FR 16962, Apr. 23, 1976]
----

Initiation of proceedings

(Case No COMP/M.3099 - Areva/Urenco/ETC JC)

(2004/C 170/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22.6.2004, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No 32/2/296.43.01 - 296.72.44) or by post, under reference No COMP/M.3099 - Areva/Urenco/ETC JC, to the following address:

----
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 105 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to correct the enrollment 

of H.R. 6063. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. NELSON of Florida submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 

was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 

correct the enrollment of H.R. 6063. 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 6063, 

an Act to authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 

make the following corrections: 

1 In section 601(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the bill, strike ‘‘Or2 biter’’. 

3 In section 611(d)(1) of the bill, strike ‘‘first Presi4 dent’’ and insert ‘‘President’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

SCON 105 ATS 

1 In section 611(e)(3) of the bill, strike ‘‘correctly’’ and 

2 insert ‘‘currently’’. 

3 In section 611(e)(7) of the bill, strike ‘‘extention’’ 

4 and insert ‘‘extension’’. 

5 In section 612 of the bill, strike ‘‘operations’’ and in6 sert ‘‘operational’’. 

7 In section 1119 of the bill, strike ‘‘The Report’’ and 

8 insert ‘‘The report’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### § 2701.5 Petition for review.

Any person may petition the Commission to review any action he alleges to be in violation of this part or 5 U.S.C. 552b that was taken by any employee or member of the Commission. The petition shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Executive Director within 30 days of the alleged violation. The Commission shall consider and rule upon the petition with expedition.
§ 4003.56 Consolidation of appeals. ( a ) *When consolidation may be required.* Whenever multiple appeals are filed that arise out of the same or similar facts and seek the same or similar relief, the Appeals Board may, in its discretion, order the consolidation of all or some of the appeals.
( b ) *Representation of parties.* Whenever the Appeals Board orders the consolidation of appeals, the appellants may designate one (or more) of their number to represent all of them for all purposes relating to their appeals.
( c ) *Decision by Appeals Board.* The decision of the Appeals Board in a consolidated appeal will be binding on all appellants whose appeals were subject to the consolidation.
[61 FR 34012, July 1, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 39

 40

 41

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■

■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ●

●

●

●
mondialexh1001.htm



Exhibit 10.01












MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION TO AMENDED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT


AMENDED MARCH 31, 2015


(Turnkey Drilling, Re Entry, and Multiple Wells)












This Modification and Extension to Amended Participation Agreement dated March 31, 2015 amending the March 26, 2014 Modification and Extension to Amended Participation Agreement is in accordance with Exhibit “B” of an *Asset Purchase Agreement made and entered into as of January 21, 2014, the Effective Date (“Effective Date”), by and among Shale Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Ontario in Canada with its principal place of business located at 365 Bay St, Suite 400, Toronto On, M5H 2V1(the “Company”), and the Investor acting as Mondial Ventures, Inc., along with approvals from Success Oil Co., Inc., its Operator and Partner, EGPI Firecreek, Inc. via its wholly owned subsidiary Energy Producers, Inc., Partner, and TWL Investments, aLLC, investing participants, herewith amend, modify and extend the following provision to the January 21, 2014 Amended Participation Agreement (please see *Asset Purchase Agreement included as Exhibit A in the Exhibit 10.1 to a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Mondial Ventures, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2014):







Section II. paragraph one shall be modified and extended to read:  







II.


Consideration


 


  


Participants shall deliver to Operator Participant’s share of the Turnkey Cost to Casing Point for drilling of the first Prospect Well, and the first Program initiated from successful financing will be for the Ellenburger Prospect Well formation at approximately 8,300 foot depth, as provided for in this Agreement and listed as follows in this section II. 1) below within a reasonable time after the execution and effective date of this Agreement not to exceed the period ending April 30, 2015, unless mutually extended by all parties to this Agreement in writing to be attached hereto. In addition, if the Turnkey Costs are delivered for the first Prospect Well listed in II. 1) below, the parties agree to extend timing for agreed participation up to two years but no less than one year. A draft for formal terms will be then delivered by participant 1 in coordination with Success for acceptance by the parties.


  


Agreed this 31st day of March, 2015 by the undersigned:


  


  



	
Mondial Ventures, Inc.

	
Success Oil Co., Inc.

	
TWL Investments, a LLC


	 	 	 
	
/s/Dennis R Alexander

	
/s/Jeru M. Morgan

	
/s/Larry W. Trapp


	
President and CEO

	
President and CEO

	
Managing Director


	 	 	 
	
Energy Producers, Inc., a wholly owned Subsidiary of EGPI Firecreek, Inc.

	 	 
	 	 	 
	
/s/Dennis R Alexander

	 	 
	
Dennis R. Alexander

	 	 
	
President and CEO
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-129-011]

Take notice that on May 11, 2000, Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following pro forma tariff sheets:

Pro Forma Sheet No. 79

Trunkline states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's Opinion No. 441 and Order on Initial Decision, 90 FERC ¶ 61,017 (2000) in the above referenced proceeding. This filing reflects Trunkline's proposal to liberalize the current directional limitations on its TABS-1 transfer service.

Trunkline states that copies of this filing are being served on all affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and parties to this proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12860  Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1105 [Reserved]
#### Julian B. Shope, App’lt, *v.*Daniel Campbell, Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 13, 1889.)*

Brokers—Commissions.

In an action to recover compensation for services performed by plaintiff in the procurement of a loan for defendant, plaintiff testified that defendant desired a loan, that he informed defendant that he could effect it, and that his charges would be so much. Defendant replied, “all right, that is satisfactory.” Defendant offered no evidence. *Held,*that judgment should be rendered for plaintiff. *

Appeal from a judgment of the Richmond county court.

*John Shope,*plaintiff, *per se; John J. Kenney,*for deft

Dykman,

J.—This is an action for the recovery of compensation for services performed by the plaintiff in the procurement of a loan of money, which he effected for the defendant The action was commenced and tried in a court of a justice of the peace, and upon the trial the plaintiff testified that the defendant desired a loan, and when the plaintiff informed him that he would try and effect the loan, the defendant desired him' to go ahead. He then testified to a subsequent conversation, in which he informed the defendant that he had parties who would make the loan, and that his charges for obtaining the loans would be $100, to which the defendant replied, all right, that is satisfactory.

*423The defendant offered no evidence, and so the testimony of the plaintiff stood uncontradicted. Yet the justice rendered a judgment for the defendant, which was reversed on appeal by the county court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for sixty dollars. The judgment was made sixty dollars in the county court because the plaintiff had received forty dollars from another source.

Both parties have appealed, but we think the judgment of the-county court is according to the very right of the case as that court is bound to do.

The judgment of the county court should be affirmed, without; costs.

All concur.
§ 10.41 Complaints. ( a ) Any worker, contractor, labor organization, trade organization, contracting agency, or other person or entity that believes a violation of the Executive Order or this part has occurred may file a complaint with any office of the Wage and Hour Division. No particular form of complaint is required. A complaint may be filed orally or in writing. If the complainant is unable to file the complaint in English, the Wage and Hour Division will accept the complaint in any language.
( b ) It is the policy of the Department of Labor to protect the identity of its confidential sources and to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, the identity of any individual who makes a written or oral statement as a complaint or in the course of an investigation, as well as portions of the statement which would reveal the individual's identity, shall not be disclosed in any manner to anyone other than Federal officials without the prior consent of the individual. Disclosure of such statements shall be governed by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, *see* 29 CFR part 70) and the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).