alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Preliminary results of hydrogeologic investigations in the valley of the Humboldt River near Winnemucca, Nevada

By: Philip M. Cohen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1754

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

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.
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Carmen GASPERO, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 16269.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 23, 1967.

Decided April 6, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1967.

Neil Leibman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Charles A. Hadda, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Alan J. Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief Appeals Division, Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

On review of the record we find no error. The Order of the District Court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be affirmed for the reasons so well stated by Judge Van Dusen in his Memorandum and Order Sur Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 267 F.Supp. 316.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 16, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20242 

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAMINE CHARLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-526-3

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Damine Charles has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Charles was notified of

counsel’s motion, but he has not filed a response.

Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### ALABAMA FUEL & IRON CO. v. LAPUMA.

(Decided December 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. E. C. Crow.

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. J. Wheeler, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### Highley v. Staireker Hughes v. Highley

*William Taylor, Jr.,*and *Ernest L. Green,*for plaintiff.

*Lloyd B. White,*for defendant.

*488
      *James A. McGoldricJc*and *Ralph B. D’lorio,*for additional defendants.

September 26, 1958.

Diggins, J.,

— These were companion cases tried before arbitrators. The cases were consolidated for the purpose of arbitration and an appeal was taken and a petition to strike off the appeal from the award of arbitrators was filed. This petition was based on the allegation that the affidavit to the appeal was taken only in one case and that the costs had not been paid in one of the cases and no bond filed in one case, and further that the bond which was filed was insufficient in amount.

Since these cases were consolidated, we think there is no merit in the petition to strike off. The appeal properly recites both captions and the affidavit is taken by a competent party and the bond is sufficient to cover anticipated costs in the consolidated appeal. It is true that in accumulating the costs, appellant failed to pay those peculiar to the one case, George N. Highley, plaintiff, v. Edward J. Staireker, defendant, and Charles J. Mahoney, additional defendant, March term, 1957, no. 1102, but we feel that in the interests of justice, these costs which have heretofore been tendered should be permitted to be paid nunc pro tunc, and therefore we make the following

*Order*

And now, to wit, September 26, 1958, petition to strike off appeal from the award of arbitrators having been filed and argument had before the court en banc, upon consideration, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said petition be and the same is hereby dismissed and appellant directed to pay costs incurred in George N. Highley, plaintiff, v. Edward J. Staireker, defendant, and Charles J. Mahoney, additional defendant, March term, 1957, no. 1102, before proceeding further on the appeal.
#### § 2700.77 Oral argument.

Oral argument may be ordered by the Commission on its own motion or on the motion of a party. A party requesting oral argument shall do so by separate motion no later than the time that it files its opening or response brief.
# AGENCY:

 Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

 Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                         This document allots Channel 242A at Big Sky, Montana, in response to a petition filed by R. Steven Hicks.                         *See*64 FR 57837, October 27, 1999. The coordinates for Channel 242A at Big Sky are 45-16-02 NL and 111-22-14 WL. There is a site restriction 7.1 kilometers (4.4 miles) west of the community. With this action, this proceeding is terminated. A filing window for Channel 242A at Big Sky will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent order.                     

# DATES:

 Effective February 22, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-307, adopted December 29, 1999 and released January 7, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

- Radio broadcasting

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Montana, is amended by adding Channel 242A at Big Sky. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 00-1263 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
20150331 EX 10_77_1


		
			MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING:  EXTENSION OF EKLUTNA GENERATION STATION AGREEMENTS AND DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISPATCH SERVICES AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach) and Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA) (herein the Parties) hereby agree to extend the Eklutna Generation Station Commissioning Dispatch Service and Test Power Agreement effective August 1, 2014 and the 2015 Interim Power Sales Agreement Between Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. and Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Interim Power Sales Agreement) effective March 31, 2015, to April 30, 2015.
		

		
			 
		

		
			The Regulatory Commission of Alaska approved the Eklutna Generation Station Amended 2015 Dispatch Services Agreement for services effective March 31, 2015.  In recognition of the extensions agreed above, the Parties agree to delay the implementation of the Dispatch Agreement until May 1, 2015.
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Chugach and MEA hereby agree to extend the Eklutna Generation Station Commissioning Dispatch Service and Test Power Agreement and the 2015 Interim Power Sales Agreement to April 30, 2015 and delay implementation of the Eklutna Generation Station Amended 2015 Dispatch Services Agreement until May 1, 2015.
		

		
			 
		

		
			This Agreement is a special contract under AS 42.05.361 and does not take effect without the prior approval of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and is, at all times, subject to the revisions by the Commission.
		

		
			 
		

		
			CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:  /s/ Bradley W. Evans
		

		
			Name: Bradley W. Evans
		

		
			Title: Chief Executive Officer
		

		
			Date: March 31, 2015
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By: /s/ Gary Kuhn acting GM for E.J. Griffith
		

		
			Name: Gary Kuhn PE
		

		
			Title: Director of Engineering
		

		
			Date: March 31, 2015
#### DAVIS v REDWOOD APARTMENTS, LTD., and WILLIAMS v REDWOOD APARTMENTS, LTD. (Consolidated)

Appeal Nos. L-507 and L-508

Tenth Judicial Circuit, Polk County

September 24, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Miyoshi D. Smith and Robert T. Connolly, Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., for appellants.

Ronald T. Murphy for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

OLIVER L. GREEN, JR., Circuit Judge.

The appellants’ Motions for consolidated of the above appeals are granted.

The appellants bring these appeals from orders of the trial Judge *106denying awards of attorneys fees, as provided for in Section 83.48 Florida Statutes. The appellants were the successful litigants in Landlord and Tenant actions below.

The trial Judge determined that the subject statute provided for “recovery” of attorney fees to “the party”, and since the appellants did not incur the responsibility for paying fees, neither should they recover any such fees. Furthermore, the trial Judge determined that the fees would not inure to the benefit of the appellants, but would go into a public revenue fund which finances the Florida Rural Legal Services Office.

While the statute is worded so as to allow a trial Judge certain discretions, it is not to be so narrowly interpreted so as to bar recovery of attorney fees under the instant circumstances. *Love v. Love,*370 So. 2d 1231 (4th DCA 1979); and *Butler v. Butler,*376 So.2d 287 (5th DCA 1979).

Similar issues raided in Federal appeals have been resolved favorable to the appellants. *Sellera v. Woolman,*510 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1975); *Blum v. Stenson,*104 S.Ct. 1541 (1984); *Rodriques v. Taylor,*569 F.2d 1231, 1235 (3rd Cir. 1977); *Dennis v. Chang,*611 F. 2d 1302, 1306 (9th Cir. 1980); *Shadis v. Beal,*685 F.2d 824, 830 (3rd Cir.) *Cert. denied,*1035 Ct. 300 (1982); and, *Riddell v. National Democratic Party,*624 F.2d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 1980).

No purpose would be served by entertaining oral argument. The orders of the learned trial judge are reversed and these actions are remanded for further proceedings pursuant to this opinion.

DATED: September 24th, 1986.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

15 July 2004

(2004/C 183/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### DICK v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 88-25-AP

Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County

January 17, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

A1 Millar, for appellant.

Edward T. Austin, State Attorney and Nancy Bramlett Barnard, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FREDERICK B. TYGART, Circuit Judge.

Several issues are raised in this appeal, to-wit: the validity of the Appellant’s arrest; whether the validity of this arrest was properly challenged before trial; and whether the testimony of Ellen Duncan was properly admitted at trial. Of these the key issue is whether the validity of Appellant’s arrest was properly challenged before trial. If it was not, then it is waived and the issue of whether Ellen Duncan’s testimony should have been admitted at trial is moot.

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), *37Fla. R. Cr. P., alleging generally that his arrest was invalid. This motion was denied as it was not sworn to.

The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss. Rule 3.190(c)(4) requires that such motions be sworn to and this motion was not. “A motion to dismiss under this rule should be summarily denied when it is not sworn to by the defendant who, by taking the oath, thus subjects himself to the penalties of pequry if his recitation of ‘undisputed facts’ is false.” *State v Upton,*392 So.2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); accord, *State v Bethea,*409 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).

This motion was not refiled by the defendant and, therefore, his right to challenge the validity of his arrest was waived and the State was free to proceed with its case. “[A]n illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution, nor is a defense to a valid conviction.” *Perry v State,*478 So.2d 494, 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

In conclusion, the arrest, even if invalid, does not provide a basis to overturn the Appellant’s conviction as the validity of the arrest was not properly challenged before trial.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 1607.10 Employment agencies and employment services.

A. *Where selection procedures are devised by agency.* An employment agency, including private employment agencies and State employment agencies, which agrees to a request by an employer or labor organization to device and utilize a selection procedure should follow the standards in these guidelines for determining adverse impact. If adverse impact exists the agency should comply with these guidelines. An employment agency is not relieved of its obligation herein because the user did not request such validation or has requested the use of some lesser standard of validation than is provided in these guidelines. The use of an employment agency does not relieve an employer or labor organization or other user of its responsibilities under Federal law to provide equal employment opportunity or its obligations as a user under these guidelines.

B. *Where selection procedures are devised elsewhere.* Where an employment agency or service is requested to administer a selection procedure which has been devised elsewhere and to make referrals pursuant to the results, the employment agency or service should maintain and have available evidence of the impact of the selection and referral procedures which it administers. If adverse impact results the agency or service should comply with these guidelines. If the agency or service seeks to comply with these guidelines by reliance upon validity studies or other data in the possession of the employer, it should obtain and have available such information.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1701

MARIE VAUGHN-WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-51-4) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marie Vaughn-Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Anita K. Henry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marie Vaughn-Walker appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vaughn-Walker v. Principi , No. CA-02-51-4 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2003). 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
#### § 1471.225 How do I know if a transaction in which I may participate is a covered transaction?

As a participant in a transaction, you will know that it is a covered transaction because the agency regulations governing the transaction, the appropriate agency official, or participant at the next higher tier who enters into the transaction with you, will tell you that you must comply with applicable portions of this part.
OP TEXAS 

AUSTIN. Tmxas 78711 

May 1, 1974 

The Honorable Joe Resweber 

Harris County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

Opinion No. H- 290 

Re: Constitutionality of 

legislation creating 

Harris County Youth 

Village Independent 

School District. 

The 63rd Legislature, in adopting what was House Bill 602 (Acts 

1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 585, p. 1624) attempted to create the Harris 

County Youth Village Independent School District coextensive with 

the territorial boundaries of the Harris County Youth Village 

operated by the Harris County Juvenile Board. 

As laudable as may be the creation of this new district, we are 

compelled to conclude that the Act creating it is unconstitutional 

as an unauthorized local law. 

The Texas Constitution in Article 7, Sec. 3, authorizes the Legislature to provide for the formation of school, districts by general laws. 

Section 56 of Article 3 specifically prohibits the creation of school 

distri,cts by local or special law. In Fritter V. West, 65 S. W. 2d 414 

(Tex. Civ. App. ) San Antonio, 1933, err0 ref’d. ) these provisions were 

cited to support an order restraining local officials from carrying 

into effect an act similar in purpose to House Bill 602. Following 

that lead, we and other Attorneys General have determined that 

statutes creating or abolishing single, designated school districts 

or offices are unconstitutional. See, for example, Attorney General 

Opinions M-1073 (1972); M-1200 (1972); M-1237 (1972); H-52 (1973); 

H-67 (1973). For a general discussion of what are special laws, see 

Attorney General Opinion H-8 (19?3), 

We are of the opinion that House Bill 602 of the 63rd Legislature 

is unconstitutional. 

p. 1355 
The Honorable Joe Resweber. page 2 (H-290) 

SUMMARY 

An act of the Legislature creating a single 

independent school district in a specified territory 

is unconstitutional as a local or special law. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

rst A sistant 

DAVID M, KENDALL, ChairmaX 

Opinion Committee 

p. 1356
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification 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 Annual Report of Lannett Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur P. Bedrosian, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Keith R. Ruck, the Interim Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Controller of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1.     | The  Report complies with the requirements of Section13(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 Company. |

 

 
| Dated:  September 28, 2009 |   | /s/Arthur  P. Bedrosian                |
|---------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                            |   |                                   |
|                            |   | Arthur  P. Bedrosian,                  |
|                            |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                            |   |                                   |
|                            |   |                                   |
| Dated:  September 28, 2009 |   | /s/Keith  R. Ruck                      |
|                            |   |                                   |
|                            |   | Keith  R. Ruck,                        |
|                            |   | Interim  Chief Financial Officer and   |
|                            |   | Corporate  Controller                  |

 

----