alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Geochemistry of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama

By: Craig L. Sprinkle

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1403I

#### Links

- More Information:                               - **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
  - **Publisher Index Page**                            (html) 
-                                                                                                                             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) 
- 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 499 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 499

   To amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act to 
  require an employer which is terminating its business to offer its 
              employees an employee stock ownership plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1999

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act to 
  require an employer which is terminating its business to offer its 
              employees an employee stock ownership plan.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Employee Ownership Enhancement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN.

    Section 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 
(29 U.S.C. 2102) is amended--
            (1) in the section head, by adding at the end the 
        following: ``AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLANS''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Employee Stock Ownership Plans.--
            ``(1) General rule.--If an employer orders a plant closing 
        in connection with the termination of its business the employer 
        shall offer its employees an opportunity to purchase the 
        business through an employee stock ownership plan as defined in 
        section 4975(e)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The 
        value of the business which is to be the subject of such plan 
        shall be its fair market value as determined by experts in 
        appraisal and such business. The cost of the appraisal shall be 
        borne by the employees.
            ``(2) Exemptions.--The requirement of paragraph (1) shall 
        not apply--
                    ``(A) if an employer orders a plant closing but 
                will retain the assets of such plant to continue or 
                begin a business; or
                    ``(B) if an employer orders a plant closing and 
                such employer intends to continue the business 
                conducted at such plant at another plant.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-104904, Form S-3 No. 333-91064and Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-56762) of our report dated February 20, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Opsware Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2004, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNGLLP

 

San Jose, California 

April 15, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Alex Demitriev, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer, of Merilus, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period December 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  April 19, 2011 By:  /s/ Alex Demitriev  Alex Demitriev  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Merilus, Inc. and will be retained by Merilus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 20, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 20, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0162. JOHN F. CARY, II v. SHEILAH CARY.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17107008
Submitted on petitioner’s petition for reconsideration filed March 30,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (111 Or App 662, 825 P2d 663) withdrawn; affirmed August 26, 1992,

petition for review denied January 26, 1993 (315 Or 312)

#### TERRY ROBERT MILLER, *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE, *Respondent.*

(CA A66951)

835 P2d 160

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, for petition.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*92PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of our decision dismissing his petition for review of an order of the Board of Parole. 111 Or App 662, 825 P2d 663 (1992). We allow reconsideration under ORAP 9.15, withdraw the opinion, and address the original petition for review. *See Owens v. Board of Parole,*113 Or App 507, 834 P2d 547 (1992). We conclude that petitioner’s claims of error are not well taken and do not require discussion.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion withdrawn; affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.689 Osage River.

The draw of the Missouri Pacific Railroad bridge, mile 5.6 at Osage City, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
#### § 4.01 Purpose.

This part collects and displays the control numbers assigned to information collection requirements of the Coast Guard by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The Coast Guard intends that this subpart comply with the requirements of section 3507(f) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires that agencies display a current control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each agency information collection requirement.

[CGD 84-050, 49 FR 26584, June 28, 1984]
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, DC 20460 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

### July 20 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Index of docketed test reports in the from aerodyn amic test facilities that

contributed to USEPA’s research FROM: Arvon Mitcham, Mechanical Engineer, and Sam Waltzer, Environmental

Engineer. TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2010 - 0162 This memorandum provides an index of the test reports received b y USEPA that present test results and technical discussion from facilities conducting aerody namic research in support of the rulemaking Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Medium - and Heavy- Duty Vehicles Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (EPA 420 - F - 10 - 038). Specificall y, these reports cover the wind tunnel and computation fluid dy namics portion. Please refer to the table below for the index and elsewhere in the docket for coastdown reports .

Facility Name of Report

SAE J1252 (Wind Tunnel) Testing Full -scale testing National Research

Council of Canada (NRC - C) “ An Evaluation of Techniques for the Measurement of Commercial Truck Aerodynamic Drag ,” November 25, 2010, Jason Leuschen and Bernard Tanguay (Aerodynamics Laboratory), Gordon Poole and William Mayda (Centre for Surface Transportation Technology). Reduced - Scale (1/8 th ) testing Auto Research Center

–

Indianapolis ( ARC - Indy) Auto Research Center Scale Model Wind Tunnel Study Using a Class Eight Semi Truck and Wabash Trailer

– Truck A Model Auto Research Center Scale Model Wind Tunnel Study Using a Class Eight Semi Truck and Wabash Trailer

– Truck B Model Auto Research Center Class Eight Semi Truck Aerodynamic Fuel Economy Test

– Truck C Model Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Navier - Stokes based software (RANS) CD - Adapco “ Aerodynamics of Large Vehicles , ” “Guidelines for Steady State Aerodynamics of Large Vehicles ,” and “ Co mments on EPA - HQ OAR - 2010 - 0162: Greenhouse G as Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Stan dards for Medium and Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles ,” Gregg Gustafson, Nick Appleyard and Frederick J. Ross Lattice- Boltzmann based software Exa Corporation “ PowerFLOW Results: Presentation in Ann Arbor ,” “ Exa Meeting with EPA ,” and “ Additional Results for EPA: Reduced Resolution Tests , ” Doug Hatfield, Kevin Horrigan and Dr. Ales Alajbegovic.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-14267-JEM

ALAN GROCHOWSKI, on behalf of himself and 

of all other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC.,

 

Defendant.

______________________________/ 

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.4, Plaintiff ALAN GROCHOWSKI, jointly with Defendant 

SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through the undersigned 

counsel, hereby give notice to the Court that the Parties have reached a settlement. The Parties will 

file a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal within forty-five (45) days of this notice, upon the execution 

of the settlement documents, and respectfully request that the Court stay the remainder of the 

proceedings until such time. 

Dated: September 20, 2022

/s/ Stephen A. Beck

Stephen A. Beck 

Florida Bar No. 1010183

Scott A. Bursor 

Florida Bar No. 68362

Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 330-5512 

Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 

sbeck@bursor.com

scott@bursor.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kristen M. Arrojo

Kristen M. Arrojo, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1027845

Joseph Lipari, Esq. Pro Hac Vice

The Sultzer Law Group, P.C.

270 Madison Ave., Suite 1800

New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (845) 483-7100

Facsimile: (888) 749-7747

arrojok@thesultzerlawgroup.com

liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com

Counsel for Defendant 

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 20, 2022, the foregoing was electronically filed 

with the Clerk of the Court via CM/ECF and served on all counsel or parties of record.

/s/ Kristen M. Arrojo

Kristen M. Arrojo, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1027845

Case 2:22-cv-14267-JEM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 96
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 96 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36281, June 25, 2010, and by USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38432, July 7, 2014.

§ 96.420 What authority may an organization ask for under this regulation? ( a ) An organization may request authorization to conduct safety management audits and to issue the following certificates: ( 1 ) Safety Management Certificate;
( 2 ) Document of Compliance certificate;
( 3 ) Interim Safety Management Certificate; and
( 4 ) Interim Document of Compliance certificate.
( b ) [Reserved]
Exhibit 32(a)



                                  CERTIFICATION

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The
Southern Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, we, the undersigned,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual
knowledge and belief, that:

(1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Southern Company for the quarter
     ended September 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The
     Southern Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of The Southern Company.



                              /s/David M. Ratcliffe
                               David M. Ratcliffe
                             Chairman, President and
                             Chief Executive Officer



                              /s/Thomas A. Fanning
                                Thomas A. Fanning
                            Executive Vice President,
                      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date:  November 3, 2005
#### § 97.105 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Approval authority* means a CSM approval authority, as that term is defined in this section.

*Cargo* means the goods or merchandise conveyed in a vessel, and includes, but is not limited to, cargo that can be measured as a “cargo unit” as that term is used in the International Maritime Organization's Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing, 2003 edition: “a vehicle, container, flat, pallet, portable tank, packaged unit, or any other entity, etc., and loading equipment, or any part thereof, which belongs to the ship but is not fixed to the ship . . .”; but it does not include other vessel equipment or the incidental personal possessions of persons on board the vessel.

*Cargo safe access plan (CSAP)* means a plan included in the cargo securing manual that provides detailed information on safe access for persons engaged in work connected with cargo stowage and securing on ships that are specifically designed and fitted for the purpose of carrying containers.

*Cargo securing manual (CSM)* means an electronic or printed manual developed to meet the requirements of SOLAS and this subpart and that is used by the master of a vessel to properly stow and secure cargoes on the vessel for which it is developed.

*Cargo securing manual approval authority* or *CSM approval authority* means an organization that meets the requirements of this subpart, and that the Commandant has authorized to conduct certain actions and issue electronic or printed approval letters on behalf of the United States.

*Captain of the Port (COTP)* means the U.S. Coast Guard officer as described in 33 CFR 6.01-3.

*Commandant,* except as otherwise specified, means the Chief, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, whose address is Commandant (CG-OES), 2703 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509 and whose telephone number is 202-372-1404.

*Container* means an article of transport equipment described in 49 CFR 450.3.

*Container vessel* means a vessel specifically designed and fitted for the purpose of carrying containers.

*International voyage* means a voyage between a port or place in one country (or its possessions) and a port or place in another country.
§ 5.30 Facilities and other equipment. ( a ) This subpart contains regulations related to the facilities and other equipment used by the Auxiliary or loaned by the Auxiliary to the Coast Guard.
( b ) *Status* — ( 1 ) *Duty.* Personal property of the Auxiliary, except when used for other than Auxiliary purposes in accordance with 14 U.S.C. 3902, will be considered assigned to authorized Coast Guard duty at all times.
( 2 ) *Liability.* Personal property of the Auxiliary, except when used for other than Auxiliary purposes in accordance with 14 U.S.C. 3902, will be treated as property of the United States for the purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Military Claims Act, the Public Vessels Act, the Suits in Admiralty Act, the Admiralty Extension Act, and other matters related to non-contractual civil liability. Personal property of the Auxiliary is not normally covered for damage to the property itself.
( 3 ) *Federal status of facilities and other equipment.* A vessel, aircraft, or radio station owned by, in the custody of, or under the administrative jurisdiction of the Auxiliary will be considered a public vessel of the United States, public vessel of the Coast Guard, public aircraft, Coast Guard Aircraft, and/or government station, in accordance with federal law.
( c ) *Expenses.* ( 1 ) The Coast Guard may reimburse expenses related to the use, operation, or maintenance of a facility.
( 2 ) The Coast Guard may reimburse expenses for damage or loss to or by a facility, including remediation, restoration, repair, replacement, or salvage costs.
( 3 ) The Coast Guard may provide an allowance for the maintenance of a facility.
[USCG-1999-6712, 80 FR 3476, Jan. 23, 2015, as amended by USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58276, Sept. 18, 2020]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-0702

Filed March 6, 2019

IN THE MATTER OF W.S.,

Alleged to Be Seriously Mentally Impaired,

W.S.,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul D. Miller, 

Judge.

W.S. appeals from an order finding he remains seriously mentally impaired. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cami Eslick of Eslick Law, Indianola, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Kraemer, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2

POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.

On March 20, 2018, the district court found W.S. remained seriously 

mentally impaired. On April 20, W.S. appealed the order, arguing the State failed 

to prove he lacked sufficient judgment to make reasonable decisions about his 

treatment and there was not substantial evidence of dangerousness because there 

was no evidence of a recent overt act, attempt, or threat. 

Before this case was transferred to our court, the supreme court raised on 

its own motion the issue of jurisdiction after it appeared notice of appeal might 

be untimely. See Root v. Toney, 841 N.W.2d 83, 87 (Iowa 2013) (noting court is 

to address jurisdictional issue of timeliness of appeal before reaching merits even 

if parties do not raise the issue). W.S. was ordered to file a statement concerning 

whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the State was permitted 

to file a response. Counsel for W.S. states that she “had neglected to take into 

account that there are [thirty-one] days in January” and argues we should excuse 

her neglect in filing the appeal one day late and consider the appeal on its merits.1

The State argues we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The supreme 

court ordered the jurisdictional issue be considered with the appeal and transferred 

the appeal to our court.

Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.101 provides that notices of appeal 

must be filed within thirty days after the filing of the final order or judgment. Timely 

notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Jensen v. State, 312 N.W.2d 581, 582 (Iowa 

 

1 We note that the number of days in January did not affect the timeliness of the notice of 

appeal here, although the number of days in March does affect the calculation of thirty 

days. 
3

1981). It was within W.S.’s control to appeal in a timely fashion. Counsel’s mistake 

is not an extraordinary circumstance like those for which we have previously 

granted delayed appeals. See, e.g., In re L.H., 890 N.W.2d 333, 339 (Iowa Ct. 

App. 2016) (allowing delayed appeal where the self-represented appellant filed the 

appeal in the wrong court and the appeal would have been timely if filed within the 

correct court). Because the appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.