alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.505 Terrebonne Bayou. ( a ) The draw of the S58 bridge, mile 22.2 at Montegut, and the draw of the S55 bridge, mile 27.3 at Klondyke, shall open on signal; except that from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. the draws shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.
( b ) The draw of the St. Ann bridge, mile 28.8 at Bourg, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
( c ) The draw of the S3087 bridge, mile 33.9 at Houma, shall open on signal; except that, from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.
( d ) The draws of the Howard Avenue bridge, mile 35.0, and the Daigleville bridge, mile 35.5, at Houma, shall open on signal; except that, the draws need not open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday, except holidays from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draws shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.
( e ) During advance notice periods, the draws of the bridges listed in this section shall open on less than four hours notice for an emergency and shall open on signal should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD 08-84-09, 50 FR 7586, Feb. 25, 1985; CGD8-89-02, 54 FR 27642, June 30, 1989; CGD8-89-02, 54 FR 34769, Aug. 22, 1989; CGD8-93-03, 58 FR 29973, May 25, 1993; CGD08-01-003, 66 FR 52687, Oct. 17, 2001; CGD08-04-028, 69 FR 49813, Aug. 12, 2004; USCG-2013-1072, 79 FR 8273, Feb. 12, 2014]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         146,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,188
<INVENTORY>                                     15,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               534,746
<PP&E>                                         177,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,328,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          324,274
<BONDS>                                        408,964
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           492
<OTHER-SE>                                     558,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,328,310
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               391,634
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  353,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (876)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,639
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
### Ground water in the Hartford, Stamford, Salisbury, Willimantic, and Saybrook areas, Connecticut

By: Herbert E. GregoryArthur Jackson Ellis

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp374

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Pages:                               - **Hartford**                            (html)
  - **Salisbury**                            (html)
  - **Saybrook**                            (html)
  - **Stamford**                            (html)
  - **Willimantic**                            (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.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**793 CA 13-00403**  PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF GERALD BROCKINGTON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ZAINAB A. CHAUDHRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered January 23, 2013 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his application for release to parole supervision in June 2011. The Attorney General has advised this Court that, subsequent to that denial and during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner reappeared before the Board of Parole in June 2013 and was again denied release. Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed as moot ( see Matter of Sanchez v Evans , 111 AD3d 1315, 1315; Matter of Robles v Evans , 100 AD3d 1455, 1455). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Sanchez , 111 AD3d at 1315; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
----

----

|   | 1. | The Report      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                              |         |                         |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------|
|                                              |         |                         |   |
| Date:  June 27, 2008     | By:          |  /s/ Gary N. Hokkanen   |   |
|                                              |  Name:  | Gary N.      Hokkanen        |   |
|                                              |  Title: | Chief Financial      Officer |   |
|                                              |         |                         |   |
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.801 Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, English Kills and their tributaries. ( a ) The following requirements apply to all bridges across Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, English Kills, and their tributaries: ( 1 ) The owners of all bridges across Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, English Kills and their tributaries listed under this section, shall provide and keep in good legible condition two clearance gauges with figures not less than 12 inches high designed, installed and maintained according to the provisions of § 118.160 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Trains and locomotives shall be controlled so that any delay in opening the draw shall not exceed five minutes. If a train moving toward the bridge has crossed the home signal for the bridge before the request to open the bridge is given, that train may continue across the bridge, but must clear the interlock before stopping.
( b ) The draws of the Long Island Railroad bridges, at mile 1.1, across Dutch Kills at Queens, shall open on signal if at least six-hours advance notice is given to the Long Island Railroad Movement Bureau, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( c ) The draw of the Borden Avenue Bridge, mile 1.2, across Dutch Kills at Queens, shall open on signal if at least a two-hour advance notice is given to the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) Radio Hotline or NYCDOT Bridge Operations Office.
( d ) The draw of the Hunters Point Avenue Bridge, mile 1.4, across Dutch Kills at Queens, shall open on signal if at least a two-hour advance notice is given to the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) Radio Hotline or the NYCDOT Bridge Operations Office.
( e ) The draw of the Metropolitan Avenue Bridge, mile 3.4, across English Kills at New York City, shall open on signal if at least a two-hour advance notice is given to the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) Radio Hotline or the NYCDOT Bridge Operations Office.
( f ) The draw of the Grand Street/Avenue Bridge, mile 3.1, across Newtown Creek (East Branch) between Brooklyn and Queens, shall open on signal if at least a two-hour advance notice is given to the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) Radio Hotline or the NYCDOT Bridge Operations Office.
( g ) ( 1 ) The draw of the of the Pulaski Bridge, mile 0.6, and the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, mile 1.3, shall open on signal if at least a two hour advance notice is given to the New York City Department of Transportation Radio (Hotline) Room.
( 2 ) The Pulaski Bridge, mile 0.6, need not open for vessel traffic at various times between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on the first Sunday in both May and November. The exact time and date of the bridge closure will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners several weeks prior to the first Sunday of both May and November.
[CGD01-99-069, 65 FR 46872, Aug. 1, 2000, as amended by CGD01-04-019, 69 FR 34573, June 22, 2004]
Exhibit 10(ss) 

 

**SUMMARY OF TERMS OF**

**NONQUALIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR MARK F. FURLONG**

 

On December 16, 2004, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Marshall & IlsleyCorporation (the “Company”) approved the terms of a nonqualified supplemental retirement plan (the “Plan”) that provides Mark F. Furlong, Senior Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, with a supplementalretirement benefit. The purpose of the Plan is to provide an annual retirement benefit such that the sum of the benefits from the Company’s contributions into its qualified and non-qualified retirement programs, Social Security and the Planequals 45% of the sum of Mr. Furlong’s highest average salary and annual short-term incentive compensation for any five of his last ten years of employment. The benefits under the Plan will begin vesting at age 55, and will be fully vested atage 62. If Mr. Furlong’s employment terminates prior to his attaining age 55 other than by reason of death or disability or in connection with a change of control of the Company, he will receive no benefits under the Plan. The total benefitunder the Plan will be adjusted in the event of death or disability before age 62, and can be paid for life with a 120-month certain payout or on a joint and survivor basis at Mr. Furlong’s option. The payout option elected may also affect theamount of the annual benefit. In the event of a change of control before Mr. Furlong attains age 55, 40% of the benefits under the Plan will be vested if the change of control occurs within 12 months of adoption of the Plan and an additional 4% ofthe benefits will vest for each year following the adoption of the Plan. In the event of a change of control after Mr. Furlong attains age 55, the benefits under the Plan will be fully vested.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7282

WILLIAM T. COLEMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

16TH CIRCUIT COURT; YORK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE; 

MELISSA INZERILLO, others may be amended; JESSICA HOLLAND; 

LEE ALFRED, 16th Circuit Court Judge; 16TH CIRCUIT 

SOLICITORS OFFICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (0:12-cv-01927-JFA)

Submitted: January 27, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William T. Coleman appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. We conclude, as did magistrate judge and the 

district court, that Coleman’s Section 1983 claims are barred by 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

486-87 (1994). We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

    Washington, D.C. 20549  

**FORM 10-K**

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR  15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13  OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.   For the transition period from: ________________ to ________________

    For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2001  

    COMMISSION FILE NO. 0-1125  

****Madison Gas and Electric Company****

**  (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)**

**  Wisconsin  (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)**

**    39-0444025  **

**  (IRS Employer Identification No.) **

**    133 South Blair Street**

**    Post Office Box 1231  **

**  Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1231**

**    (Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including ZIP Code)  **

**    (608) 252-7000  **

**  (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)**

**    Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:  **

**    Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  **

**    Common Stock, Par Value $1 Per Share  **

**    (Title of Class)  **

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has filed all  reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that  the Registrant was required to file such reports) and has been subject to such  filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  X  No 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant  to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be  contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information  statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any  amendment to this Form 10-K. Yes  X  No 

State the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by  nonaffiliates of the Registrant: $481,420,828 based on a closing bid price of  $28.00 as of March 15, 2002.

The number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes  of common stock, as of the close of the periods covered by this report, was  17,071,554 for 2001, 16,618,729 for 2000 and 16,161,305 for 1999 of Common Stock,  Par Value $1 Per Share.

List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference  and the part of the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which  the document is incorporated: Any annual report to security holders, any proxy  or information statement and any prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) or  (c) under the Securities Act of 1933.

- Definitive Proxy Statement filed prior  to April 30, 2002 (Parts I and III)

Table of Contents

PART I.
Item 1 - Business
Item 2 - Properties
Item 3 - Legal Proceedings
Item 4 - Results of Votes of Security Holders
PART II.
Item 5 - Market for the Registrant's Common  Stock and Related Stockholder Matters
Item 6 - Selected Financial Data
Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis  of Financial Condition and
# Title VI PPR Revision 60 Day Comments and ACL Responses

ACL received comments from ten (10) organizations and two (2) individuals about the Program Performance Report (PPR) redesign.  ACL reviewed all of the comments. However, some of the comments were deemed to not be relevant because they were: (a) about the data submission process itself; (b) did not request a change; (c) only related to format; or (d) indicated topics for technical assistance and training for the final data collection.  For ease of review, the remaining comments and their responses have been grouped by topic or issue. The ACL responses for each topic/issue are detailed below:
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 150.621 What are the requirements for slings?

The use of slings for handling material must comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.184.
Our Commitment: 

Community Living For All

Administration for Community Living

The Administration for Community Living was created around the fundamental 

principle that older adults and people of all ages with disabilities should be 

able to live where they choose, with the people they choose and with the 

ability to participate fully in their communities. By funding services and 

supports provided by networks of community-based organizations, and with 

investments in research and innovation, ACL helps make this principle a 

reality for millions of Americans.

In short, at ACL, we are fully committed to making 

community living possible for all. 

At ACL:

■ We believe community living should always be the expectation. 

■ “Community” means places where people of all ages, with and without disabilities, 

live, grow, learn, work, are valued and create a better shared future together. 

■ We are committed to upholding the rights guaranteed in the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and reinforced through the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 

Olmstead v. L.C. – a decision we fully support. 

■ We are firmly committed to supporting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services in implementing the federal home- and community-based settings rule. 

ACL is an operating division of the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

twitter.com/aclgov

facebook.com/aclgov

www.ACL.gov
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2108

___________

Cesar De La Garza, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Joan Fabian; Erik Skon; *

Jessica Symmes; Mark Thielen; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Lacie Stevenson; Lynn Dingle; *

Jane Norman, sued in their *

individual and official capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2010

Filed: October 27, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Cesar De La Garza appeals following the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo

review of the record, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J.

Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 
Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard of review), and having carefully considered

De La Garza’s multiple arguments for reversal, we affirm. Specifically, we agree with

the district court’s reasons for concluding that no trialworthy issues existed as to any

of the substantive claims raised by De La Garza. We also find that the court did not

abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel, in denying certain discovery, in

refusing to extend the deadline for discovery or for De La Garza’s response to the

pending summary judgment motion, and in denying his motion for recusal. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-