alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Chemical quality of water in the Walnut River basin, south-central Kansas

By: Robert B. Leonard

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1982

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (8555 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 2**                            (4237 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 3**                            (5398 pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Chemical quality of water in the Walnut River basin, south-central Kansas(1968)                                    

- 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.
Argued and submitted April 1,

reversed December 9, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MICKEY DEAN THOMPSON, *Appellant.*

(89-08-0282 CR; CA A70456)

843 P2d 960

Mike Kilpatrick, Mt. Vernon, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Kilpatricks, Mt. Vernon.

Janie M. Bureart, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Rossman, J., dissenting.

*169PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from his conviction for theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. We reverse.

Defendant was found guilty in a jury trial. Before sentencing, he learned that the grand jury that indicted him had only six members and moved to quash the indictment. The court denied the motion.

Seven grand jurors must hear and consider all the evidence presented before a grand jury can return a valid indictment. Or Const, Art VII (amended), § 5(2); *Goodwin v. State of Oregon,*116 Or App 279, 840 P2d 1372 (1992). Here, only six grand jurors considered the evidence and returned the indictment against defendant. The indictment is void.

Reversed.

ROSSMAN, J.,

dissenting.

Although the result in this case is mandated by our recent in banc opinion in *Goodwin v. State of Oregon,*116 Or App 279, 840 P2d 1372 (1992), I still disagree with the holding in that case for the reasons stated by Judge Edmonds in his well-reasoned dissent. I do not believe that there is anything in Article VIII, section 5(2), of the Oregon Constitution that requires an indictment to be the result of the deliberations of not less than seven grand jurors.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Condensed ConsolidatedOBalance Sheets
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,553
<SECURITIES>                                     1,682
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,650
<INVENTORY>                                     38,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,502
<PP&E>                                         209,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,658
<BONDS>                                        240,437
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,139
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,708
<SALES>                                        230,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               230,205
<CGS>                                          196,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,263
<INCOME-TAX>                                       902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                738
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       738
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52


</TABLE>
#### § 780.121 What constitutes “raising” of livestock.

The term “raising” employed with reference to livestock in section 3(f) includes such operations as the breeding, fattening, feeding, and general care of livestock. Thus, employees exclusively engaged in feeding and fattening livestock in stock pens where the livestock remains for a substantial period of time are engaged in the “raising” of livestock. The fact that the livestock is purchased to be fattened and is not bred on the premises does not characterize the fattening as something other than the “raising” of livestock. The feeding and care of livestock does not necessarily or under all circumstances constitute the “raising” of such livestock, however. It is clear, for example, that animals are not being “raised” in the pens of stockyards or the corrals of meat packing plants where they are confined for a period of a few days while en route to slaughter or pending their sale or shipment. Therefore, employees employed in these places in feeding and caring for the constantly changing group of animals cannot reasonably be regarded as “raising” livestock (*NLRB* v. *Tovrea Packing Co.,* 111 F. 2d 626, cert. denied 311 U.S. 668; *Walling* v. *Friend,* 156 F. 2d 429). Employees of a cattle raisers' association engaged in the publication of a magazine about cattle, the detection of cattle thefts, the location of stolen cattle, and apprehension of cattle thieves are not employed in raising livestock and are not engaged in agriculture.
#### § 784.147 Employees “employed in” canning.

All employees whose activities are directly and necessarily a part of the canning of the specified aquatic forms of life are within the exemption provided by section 13(b)(4). Thus, employees engaged in handling the fish or seafood, placing it into the cans, providing steam for cooking it or operating the machinery that seals the cans or the equipment that sterilizes the canned product are engaged in exempt activities. In addition, can loft workers, those engaged in removing and carrying supplies from the stock room for current use in canning operations, and employees whose duty it is to re-form cans, when canning operations are going on, for current use, are engaged in exempt activities. Similarly, the repairing, oiling, or greasing during the active season of canning machinery or equipment currently used in the actual canning operations are exempt activities. The making of repairs in the production room such as to the floor around the canning machinery or equipment would also be deemed exempt activities where the repairs are essential to the continued canning operations or to prevent interruptions in the canning operations. These examples are illustrative but not exhaustive. Employees engaged in other activities which are similarly integrated with and necessary to the actual conduct of the canning operations will also come within the exemption. Employees whose work is not directly and necessarily a part of the canning operations are not exempt. See §§ 784.106, 784.140, and 784.141.
Draft O 3 NPR –January 5 , 20 10 Deliberative, Do Not Quote or Cite 227 Deleted: December 29 Deleted: 4 Deleted: 09 evidence and the quantitative exposure and risk assessments. Additionally, EPA’s 1 rationale did not discuss and thus placed no weight on exposures of concern relative to 2 the 0.060 ppm benchmark. Further, EPA concluded that “[a] standard set at a lower level 3 than 0.075 ppm would only result in significant further public health protection if, in fact, 4 there is a continuum of health risks in areas with 8-hour average O 3 concentrations that 5 are well below the concentrations observed in the key controlled human exposure studies 6 and if the reported associations observed in epidemiological studies are, in fact, causally 7 related to O 3 at those lower levels. Based on the available evidence, [EPA] is not 8 prepared to make these assumptions” (73 FR 16483). 9 In reconsidering the entire body of evidence available in the 2008 rulemaking, 10 including the Agency’s own assessment of the epidemiological evidence in the 2006 11 Criteria Document, and placing significant weight on the views of CASAC, the 12 Administrator now concludesthat important and significant risks to public health are 13 likely to occur at a standard level of 0.075 ppm. She judges that a standard level of 0.075 14 ppm is not sufficient to provide protection with an adequate margin of safety. In support 15 of this conclusion, the Administrator finds that setting a standard that would protect 16 public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of 17 safety should reasonably depend upon giving some weight to the results of the Adams 18 studies and EPA's reanalysis of the Adams's data, and to how effectively alternative 19 standard levels would serve to limit exposures of concern relative to the 0.060 ppm 20 benchmark level as well as to the 0.070 ppm benchmark level. The Administrator notes 21 that EPA’s risk assessment estimates comparable risk reductions in going from a 0.074 22 ppm standard to a 0.064 ppm standard as were estimated in going from the then current 23 Deleted: apparently gave Deleted: at all t o Deleted: which reflected the lowest-observed-effects level for lung function effects observed in healthy adults in the Adams studies

Deleted: finds a compelling basis for Deleted: i n g Deleted: based on the controlled human exposure, toxicological, and epidemiological evidence
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of the meeting on October 12-13, 2011 is to review new start research and development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) funds in excess of $1M. This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

# DATES:

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. & Thursday, October 13, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

SERDP Office Conference Center, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jonathan Bunger, SERDP Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at (703) 696-2126.

Dated: August 8, 2011.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2011-20398 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 299 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 299

 Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival 
                               of Diwali.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2007

 Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
  Levin, and Mr. Casey) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                           November 14, 2007

        Committee discharged; considered, amended, and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival 
                               of Diwali.

Whereas Diwali, a festival of great significance to Indian Americans and South 
        Asian Americans, is celebrated annually by Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains 
        throughout the United States;
Whereas there are nearly 2,000,000 Hindus in the United States, approximately 
        1,250,000 of which are of Indian and South Asian origin;
Whereas the word ``Diwali'' is a shortened version of the Sanskrit term 
        ``Deepavali'', which means ``a row of lamps'';
Whereas Diwali is a festival of lights, during which celebrants light small oil 
        lamps, place them around the home, and pray for health, knowledge, and 
        peace;
Whereas celebrants of Diwali believe that the rows of lamps symbolize the light 
        within the individual that rids the soul of the darkness of ignorance;
Whereas Diwali falls on the last day of the last month in the lunar calendar and 
        is celebrated as a day of thanksgiving and the beginning of the new year 
        for many Hindus;
Whereas for Hindus, Diwali is a celebration of the victory of good over evil;
Whereas for Sikhs, Diwali is feted as the day that the sixth founding Sikh Guru, 
        or revered teacher, Guru Hargobind, was released from captivity by the 
        Mughal Emperor Jehangir; and
Whereas for Jains, Diwali marks the anniversary of the attainment of moksha, or 
        liberation, by Mahavira, the last of the Tirthankaras (the great 
        teachers of Jain dharma), at the end of his life in 527 B.C.: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the religious and historical significance of 
        the festival of Diwali; and
            (2) in observance of Diwali, the festival of lights, 
        expresses its deepest respect for Indian Americans and the 
        Indian diaspora throughout the world on this significant 
        occasion.
                                 <all>
```
§ 530.6 Termination of individual homeworker certificates. ( a ) A certificate shall be valid under the terms set forth in the certificate for a period to be designated by the Administrator or his authorized representative. Application for renewal of any certificate shall be filed in the same manner as an original application under this part.
( b ) No effective certificate shall expire until action on an application for renewal shall have been finally determined, provided that such application has been properly executed in accordance with the requirements, and filed not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the expiration date. A final determination means either the granting of or initial denial of the application for renewal of a certificate, or withdrawal of the application. A “properly executed” application is one which contains the complete information required on the form.
[24 FR 729, Feb. 3, 1959, as amended at 27 FR 7020, July 25, 1962]
#### § 780.801 Statutory provisions.

Section 13(b)(15) of the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from the overtime requirements of section 7:

Any employee engaged in ginning of cotton for market, in any place of employment located in a county where cotton is grown in commercial quantities, or in the processing of sugar beets, sugar-beet molasses, sugarcane, or maple sap, into sugar (other than refined sugar) or syrup.

Section 13(b)(15) supplants two exemptions that were contained in the Act prior to the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966. The first is former section 13(a)(18), having identical language, which provided a complete exemption for those employed in the ginning of cotton. The second is the former section 7(c) which provided an overtime exemption for the employees of an employer engaged in sugar processing operations resulting in unrefined sugar or syrup.
§ 1960.73 Federal agency injury and illness recordkeeping forms. ( a ) When filling out the OSHA Form 300 or equivalent, each agency must enter the employee's OPM job series number and job title in Column (c).
( b ) When recording the injuries and illnesses of uncompensated volunteers, each agency must enter a “V” before the OPM job series number in Column (c) of the OSH Form 300 log or equivalent.
( c ) Each agency must calculate the total number of hours worked by uncompensated volunteers.
[78 FR 47191, Aug. 5, 2013]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

) 

WILLIAM ALFRED HICKS, JR., ) 

Cpmplainant ) 

v. 

CITY OF MOUNT AIRY and SURRY 

COUNTY through MOUNT AIRY/ 

SURRY COUNTY AIRPORT 

AUTHORITY, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-07 

On June 5, 2015, counsel for Respondents, City of Mount Airy, Surry County, and Mount 

Airy/Surry County Airport Authority, filed a Motion under 14 CFR § 16.19(e), requesting 

an extension of time to file their Answer to the Complaint until August 3, 2015. 

Counsel advised that additional time is needed to appropriately respond to a number of 

issues in the Complaint, which was filed on May 4, 2015, and to coordinate responses 

between the Respondents. Counsel advised that the Complainant does not oppose an 

extension. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. See Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airports (Retrospective 

Regulatory Review) Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 56135 (Sept. 12, 2013); Rules of Practice for 

Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 

(Oct. 16, 1996). Parties may file a written motion for an extension of time. See 14 CFR 

§ 16.19( e). The Director may issue an order extending any time period prescribed where 

necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency. 

See 14CFR§ 16.11(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the 

Respondents' motion is hereby GRANTED. The Answer to the Complaint (or a motion to 

dismiss or motion for summary judgment under 14 CFR § 16.26) is now due on August 3, 

2015. The Complainant may file a Reply within ten days of the date of service of the 

Answer. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

"3'~ /6 I 21/( 

Date 

Director, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 17, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing ORDER 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Randolph M. James 

Randolph M. James, P.C. 

P.O. Box 20069 

Winston-Salem, NC 27120 

Counsel for Respondents 

Howard C. Jones II 

105 W 4th St Suite 400-E 

Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

Edwin M. Woltz 

Edwin M. Woltz Attorney at Law PLLC 

119 Rawley Ave 

Mount Airy, NC 27030 

Hugh B. Campbell III 

Campbell Law Group, PLLC 

235 E Independence Blvd 

PO Box 1846 

Mount Airy, NC 27030 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (A CO-l 00) 

Office of Airport 

~ Compliance
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the financial statements contained in the body of the Form 10-K
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     565
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              33,479
<ALLOWANCES>                               (4,475)
<INVENTORY>                                29,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           47,381
<PP&E>                                     30,764
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,857)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      26,911
<BONDS>                                    36,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   892
<OTHER-SE>                                 43,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,778
<SALES>                                    123,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           123,753
<CGS>                                      74,355
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              40,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,034
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            6,783
<INCOME-TAX>                               2,781
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        4,002
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               4,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .46


</TABLE>