alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade(PDF Format)
June 1999, ERS-AES-22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report is published by the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20036-5831.  A summary in ASCII form was
released on June 02, 1999.

Printed copies are available from the ERS-NASS order desk.  Call, toll-free,
1-800-999-6779 and ask for  Stock #SUB-AES-4035. ERS-NASS accepts MasterCard
and Visa.

Please note that this publication is in .PDF format and 43.1 KB in size.
Acrobat Reader 3.0 or later is required to view and print this document.
The Adobe Acrobat .PDF format is used to preserve all the layout and
content used in the original publication. To download and get help using
the Adobe Acrobat Reader, please go to:

http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html

For More Information on ERS Publications and Data
*************************************************
Visit the ERS web site at:
   http://www.econ.ag.gov

Other reports are available from the Products and Services
area on the ERS web site from:
   http://www.econ.ag.gov/prodsrvs/periodic.htm

For sales information on ERS publications, go to:
   http://www.econ.ag.gov/prodsrvs/sales.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
END_OF_FILE
#### § 110.74a Manatee River, Bradenton, Fla.

The waters of the Manatee River enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 27°31′18.6′′ N. longitude 82°36′49.2′′ W.; thence westerly to latitude 27°31′21′′ N., longitude 82°37′7.2′′ W.; thence northwesterly to latitude 27°31′22.2′′ N., longitude 82°37′8.4′′ W.; thence northeasterly to latitude 27°31′25.8′′ N., longitude 82°37′00′′ W.; thence easterly to latitude 27°31′24′′ N., longitude 82°36′44.4′′ W.; thence to the point of beginning.

[CGD 79-118, 45 FR 32673, May 19, 1980]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

90 

CA 10-01103 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

LABARGE BROTHERS CO., INC. AND LABARGE 

COMPANIES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

(APPEAL NO. 4.) 

 

EDWARD C. COSGROVE, BUFFALO (JAMES C. COSGROVE OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (ANN MAGNARELLI

ALEXANDER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered March 4, 2010. The order denied

plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew and reargue. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as

it denied those parts of plaintiff’s motion for leave to reargue its

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the

complaint and for leave to reargue its cross motion is unanimously

dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs (see

Verizon New York, Inc. v LaBarge Bros. Co., Inc. [appeal No. 1], ___

AD3d ___ [Feb. 10, 2011]).

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 361 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 361

To permit the collection of donations in Senate buildings to be sent to 
United States military personnel on active duty overseas participating 
    in or in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring 
                   Freedom, and the war on terrorism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 31, 2007

 Mr. McConnell (for himself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Bennett) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To permit the collection of donations in Senate buildings to be sent to 
United States military personnel on active duty overseas participating 
    in or in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring 
                   Freedom, and the war on terrorism.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF DONATIONS TO UNITED STATES MILITARY PERSONNEL.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules 
or regulations of the Senate--
            (1) a Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate may 
        collect from another Senator, officer, or employee of the 
        Senate within Senate buildings nonmonetary donations to be sent 
        to United States military personnel on active duty overseas 
        participating in or in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
        Operation Enduring Freedom, and the war on terrorism; and
            (2) a Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate may work 
        with a nonprofit organization with respect to the delivery of 
        donations that are collected as described in paragraph (1).
    (b) Effective Period.--This resolution shall be in effect until 
December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
#### STEINERT v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 84-157 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

January 14, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Harvey Watnick for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Steven T. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, SALMON, ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

STEVEN D. ROBINSON, Judge.

*178This appeal is directed to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside his plea.

Defendant’s attorney filed a written plea at arraignment, February 2, 1984, of nolo contendere to the charges of being an electrical contractor and a plumbing contractor without a certificate of occupancy. On May 25, 1984, the Trial Judge sentenced the defendant to a concurrent sixty day jail sentence.

The defendant alleged in his motion that he was unaware of the full consequences of his actions, did not enter his plea freely and voluntarily and that no full plea colloquy occurred. The record in this case bears out the truth of these allegations. There is no indication that the defendant knew either the possible maximum penalties or that he could possibly receive them.

The trial court made no finding that the plea was entered into freely and voluntarily. It could not have done so, as there is no colloquy with the defendant at all. In fact the record is not clear whether the defendant was even present. “We cannot presume a waiver of important federal rights from a silent record.” *Boykin v. Alabama,*395 U.S. 238; 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712; 23 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1969). Setting aside a plea under these circumstances is consistent with the cases, *A.E.K. v. State,*432 SO.2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) and *Archival v. State,*340 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) and *Wooff v. State,*303 So.2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) and does prevent a manifest injustice, *Williams v. State,*316 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1975).

The Judgment and Sentence are reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside the pleas of nolo contendere and to permit Steinert to plead anew on the two charges.

SIMONS and SALMON, JJ., concur.
#### State of New York, Respondent, v Beverly Prince, Also Known as Beverly Davis, Appellant.

Submitted September 3, 1996;

decided September 12, 1996

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2019 a0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2019

156587(41)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156587

COA: 337913

Calhoun CC: 2012-000577-FC

MICHAEL WILLIAM KUZMA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 7, 

2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
### Water resources of De Soto Parish, Louisiana

By: Leland Vernon PageHenry Louis Pree

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1774

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 11**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 12**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 13**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### 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.
#### § 110.115 Santa Barbara Harbor, Calif.

North of the Santa Barbara breakwater; seaward of the line of mean high water; and southwest of a line bearing 46°30′ from the north corner of Bath Street and Cabrillo Boulevard to the end of the Santa Barbara breakwater; excluding a fairway 225 feet wide, 100 feet from each side of and parallel to the Navy pier.

Note:

Fore and aft moorings will be allowed in this area conforming to the City of Santa Barbara Harbor Ordinance No. 2106 for yachts and small craft of such size and alignment as permitted by the harbor master.
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.697 What are the requirements for a noise level survey? ( a ) A survey to determine the maximum noise level during normal operations must be conducted in each accommodation space, working space, or other space routinely used by personnel. The recognized methodology used to conduct the survey must be specified in the survey results. Survey results must be kept on the deepwater port or, for an unmanned deepwater port, in the owner's principal office.
( b ) The noise level must be measured over 12 hours to derive a time weighted average (TWA) using a sound level meter and an A-weighted filter or equivalent device.
( c ) If the noise level throughout a space is determined to exceed 85 db(A), based on the measurement criteria in paragraph (b) of this section, then signs must be posted with the legend: “Noise Hazard—Hearing Protectors Required.” Signs must be posted at eye level at each entrance to the space.
( d ) If the noise level exceeds 85 db(A) only in a portion of a space, then the sign described in paragraph (c) of this section must be posted within that portion where visible from each direction of access.
( e ) Working spaces and other areas routinely used by personnel, other than accommodation spaces, must be designed to limit the noise level in those areas so that personnel wearing hearing protectors may hear warning and emergency alarms. If this is not practicable and warning and emergency alarms cannot be heard, visual alarms in addition to the audible alarms must be installed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35665-35666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14093]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


June 13, 2000 Board of Directors Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, June 13, 2000, 1:00 pm (Open Portion) 1:30 pm 
(Closed Portion).

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Meeting open to the Public from 1:00 pm to 1:30 pm. Closed 
portion will commence at 1:30 pm (approx.).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   
    1. President's Report.
    2. Appointment--Joan Logue-Kinder.
    3. Approval of March 21, 2000 Minutes (Open Portion).

FURTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (Closed to the Public 1:30 pm).

[[Page 35666]]

    1. Finance Project in Southeast Europe.
    2. Insurance Project in Bulgaria.
    3. Finance Project in Equatorial Guinea.
    4. Finance Project in Turkey.
    5. Insurance Project in Brazil.
    6. Approval of March 21, 2000 Minutes (Closed Portion).
    7. Pending Major Projects.
    8. Reports.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.

    Dated: May 31, 2000.
Connie M. Downs,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14093 Filed 6-1-00; 10:33 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 7, 2011, Chemica, 316 West 130th Street, Los Angeles, California 90061, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of Methamphetamine (1105), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.

The above listed controlled substance is an intermediate in the manufacture of Benzphetamine, a schedule III non-narcotic controlled substance. The methamphetamine will not be sold as a commercial product. The company plans to utilize a bulk active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), as an intermediate for the development of another controlled substance, and further distribution to its customers. The methamphetamine will not be sold.

Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).

Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than October 17, 2011.

Dated: August 10, 2011.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 2011-21074 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### § 106.130 Equivalents.

For any measure required by this part, the OCS facility owner or operator may propose an equivalent, as provided in § 101.130 of this subchapter.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7849

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM MCCOLLUM, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-988; CA-04-23256) Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William McCollum, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William McCollum, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCollum has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.1



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 Quarterly Report of AmSouth
Bancorporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 (the Report), I, C. Dowd Ritter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    C. DOWD RITTER  
|C. Dowd Ritter         
|Chief Executive Officer



May 5, 2003



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AmSouth Bancorporation and will be retained by AmSouth Bancorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2



## FEB 2 B

## 10JJ Honorable John P. deJongh, Jr. Office ofthe Governor 

### Government House, 21-22 Kongens Gade Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, VI 00802
Dear Governor deJongh: 290 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10007·1866

On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the healthbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfurdioxide (S02) by establishing a new 1-hourstandard at a level of75 parts per billion (ppb). This new !-hour standard will protect public health by reducing people's exposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) concentrations ofS02. An area meets the new standard when the 3-year average ofthe 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. Section 107(d)(l) ofthe CleanAirAct (CAA) describes the process EPA follows for designating areas as meeting ornot meeting a new or revised NAAQS. Within one year of establishing a new or revised standard, each governor must recommend a designation of attainment, nonattairunent orunclassifiable, with appropriate boundaries, for areas within their jurisdiction. Therefore, we ask that your state provide designationrecommendations, including appropriate area boundaries, for all areas by June 3, 2011, with respect to the 1-hour 

### S02 NAAQS. The enclosed memorandwnprovides guidance to state and local airpollution control agencies and tribes on the timeline and process for designating areas under the revised 

# so2 standard. We planto announce our intended designations no later

### than 120 days prior to promulgating final designations. Followingthe announcement ofintended designations, states and tribes will have the opportunityto comment on anymodifications EPA proposes to their recommendations. EPA intends to complete designations by no laterthan June 3, 2012. Establishing area designations is a key step in the process ofprovidingthe health protection intended by the CAA. Should youhave questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me orhave your staffcontact Raymond Werner, ChiefAirPrograms Branch, at 212-637-3706. Sincerely,


### Cl•'-f-1-J

# ~·**C'~** dith A. Enck egional Administrator

Internet Address (URL) • http://ww.v.epa.gov Rec:yciMIIR.cycbob

.. ·Printed with Vegetabl& 01 Based Inks on Recycled Paper**(M~mum** 30'Y. Postconsumer)Enclosure

cc: Alicia V. Barnes, Commissioner Virgin Islands Department ofPlanning & Natural Resources 

### 8100 Lindberg Bay, STE. #61 Cyril 

### E. King Airport, Tenninal Bldg., Second Floor St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802