alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Geologic interpretation of the gamma-ray aeroradiometric maps of central and northern Florida

By: A. E. GroszJ.B. CathcartD. L. MackeM.S. KnappWalter SchmidtT.M. Scott

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1461

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- 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.
Hanover District Court

No. 7665

#### Laurence F. Gardner v. Patricia M. Ahern

June 20, 1977

Laurence F. Gardner, pro se, filed no brief.

*Martha M. Davis,*of Windsor, Vt., for the defendant, filed no brief.

Memorandum Opinion

Action in assumpsit to recover the balance due on a bill for legal services rendered by the plaintiff’s firm to the defendant. There was a hearing before the justice of the Hanover District Court, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff for $350, from which the defendant appealed. Transferred by *Slive,*J.

Numerous exhibits, but no transcript of the evidence, were transferred.

We find no errors on the face of the record and sustain the district court’s decision. *Koziell v. Fairbanks,*115 N.H. 679, 348 A.2d 358 (1975).

*Judgment on the*verdict.
§ 778.4 What are the Postal Service's general responsibilities under the Order? ( a ) The Postal Service provides opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those state and local governments that would be directly affected by the Postal Service's facility project actions.
( b ) If a state adopts a process under the Order to review and coordinate proposed direct Federal development projects, the Postal Service, to the extent permitted by law: ( 1 ) Uses the state process to determine official views of state and local elected officials;
( 2 ) Communicates with state and local elected officials as early in a facility project action's planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions;
( 3 ) Makes efforts to accommodate state and local elected officials' concerns with proposed direct Federal development projects that are communicated through the state process; and
( 4 ) - ( 5 ) [Reserved]
( 6 ) Seeks the coordination of views of affected state and local elected officials in one state with those of another state when a proposed direct Federal development project has an impact on interstate metropolitan urban centers or other interstate areas.
(Letterhead  of  Bongiovanni  &  Associates)


                                                           555 S. Powerline Road
                                                    Pompano Beach, Florida 33069

(954)  979-5353  Office
(954)  979-6695  fax

To  the  Board  of  Directors  and  Stockholders:
Peoplesway.com,  Inc.
2969  Interstate  Street
Charlotte,  NC  28208

July  16,  2001

Gentlemen:

We  hereby  consent to the use of our audit report of Peoplesway.com, Inc. dated
June  21,  2001  for  the  year  ended  March  31,  2001  in  the Form 10-KSB of
Peoplesway.com,  Inc.  dated  June  28,  2001.




/s/  Perrella  &  Associates
----------------------------
Appendix A.9 - Sample Checklist for Station Accessibility

# Appendix A.9 – Sample Checklist for Station Accessibility

This questionnaire is designed to allow evaluation of the overall accessibility of the *ABC* program by looking at where we send volunteers to serve. It is not meant to eliminate stations for possible placement of volunteers but to provide information needed to match volunteers with volunteer stations.

Organization Name

Name/Signature of person completing checklist	Date

*Version 2020.2*Pg. 1*of 1*

This document is provided as a sample ONLY. Its use is optional and, if used, it should be customized as appropriate. *For all appendices, including editable versions of samples and templates, visit**https://www.nationalservice.gov/operations-handbook-appendices.*
§ 3040.131 Contents of a request. A request to modify the market dominant product list or the competitive product list shall: ( a ) Provide the name, and class if applicable, of each product that is the subject of the request;
( b ) Provide a copy of the Governor's decision supporting the request, if any;
( c ) Indicate whether the request proposes to add a product to the market dominant list or the competitive list, remove a product from the market dominant list or the competitive list, or transfer a product from the market dominant list to the competitive list or from the competitive list to the market dominant list;
( d ) Indicate whether each product that is the subject of the request is: ( 1 ) A special classification within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10) for market dominant products;
( 2 ) A product not of general applicability within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) for competitive products; or
( 3 ) A non-postal product.
( e ) Provide all supporting justification upon which the Postal Service proposes to rely; and
( f ) Include a copy of the applicable sections of the Mail Classification Schedule and the proposed changes therein in legislative format.
[72 FR 63698, Nov. 9, 2007. Redesignated at 85 FR 9615, Feb. 19, 2020]
§ 101-28.304-2 Determining items to be stocked. ( a ) Each CSC will stock administrative items normally required by Federal agencies for day-to-day operations. In addition to those items, each CSC will stock additional items as determined by the requirements of the activities within the geographic area it serves.
( b ) Regional FSS offices will canvass customer agencies periodically to identify items for which there is an official need within their support area.
( c ) Customer agencies may request that specific items be stocked by their support CSC. The requests must be submitted in writing to the appropriate-FSS Bureau Director and must be signed by a customer agency official at a level of responsibility (division director or higher) acceptable to the GSA Regional Administrator. All requests must indicate the expected monthly usage of the item requested. Each request will be evaluated and the submitting activity notified of the results of the evaluation.
§ 912.3 Time limit for filing. ( a ) *Claim.* A claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act must be presented within two years from the date the claim accrues.
( b ) *Suit.* Suit must be filed within six months after the date of mailing by certified or registered mail of notice of final denial of the claim by the Postal Service.
[45 FR 43720, June 30, 1980]
From: Carlson, Sara <Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:43 PM

To: Fortin, Kelly

Cc: Land, Eva; Grygar, Bill; Maness, Katie; Rahul Pendse 

(rpendse@trinityconsultants.com)

Subject: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation - Diamond BlackHawk PSD PreConstruction and Title V Operating Permit Application Addendum

Attachments: FINAL BLACKHAWK Permit Modification Application Package.pdf

Hey Kelly, 

Good afternoon. Attached is the addendum to the Diamond BlackHawk PSD Pre-Construction and Title V 

Operating Permit application that was submitted to EPA in September 2013. A paper copy of the 

addendum was mailed to the EPA today.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

Sara Carlson

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Sr HSE Representative, Gulf of Mexico

Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com

832-636-1273 (office)

832-506-0888 (cell)

Click here for Anadarko’s Electronic Mail Disclaimer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Afluid-dynamic mechanism of meteorite pitting**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:SI 1.12/2:3/6
Item Number:0909-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001060520
 
June 15, 2018
Exhibit






HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT - ADDENDUM
This Participation Agreement Addendum (“Addendum”) is hereby entered into by and between HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (the “Company”) and JEFFREY J. DEUEL, an employee of the Company (the “Participant,” and together with the Company, the “Parties”).  
RECITALS
		
	A.
	The Company has adopted the Heritage Financial Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan, effective July 1, 2012, as amended and restated August 29, 2012 (the “Plan”);


		
	B.
	The Parties entered into a Participation Agreement, dated July 1, 2012 (the “Participation Agreement”), as amended by the Participation Agreement – Addendum, dated December 19, 2016;


		
	C.
	The Committee has determined that the Participation Agreement should be extended to provide additional benefits to the Participant for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 calendar years; and


		
	D.
	This Addendum is attached to and made a part of the Participation Agreement, incorporates all defined terms therein unless otherwise defined herein, and in the event of any conflict between the terms contained in this Addendum and the terms contained in the Participation Agreement, the terms contained in this Addendum shall supersede and control the obligations and liabilities of the Parties.


AGREEMENT
In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants of the parties hereto set forth in this Addendum, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby expressly covenant and agree as follows:
Section 1.Company Contributions.  The Company shall continue to make a Company Contribution for Plan Years 2020, 2021, and 2022, on the same terms and conditions set forth in the Participant Agreement, with the performance metrics and targets in connection with such Company Contributions for such Plan Years to be established in the sole discretion of the Committee, following consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
Section 2.    Entire Agreement.  This Addendum, in addition to the Participation Agreement and the Plan, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, undertakings, agreements, and arrangements with respect thereto, whether written or oral.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Participant have duly executed this Addendum as of the date set forth below.
HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
By:     
Its:     
PARTICIPANT
        
JEFFREY J. DEUEL




Date:     


1260981
Exhibit 32.1



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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Validian Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-KSB.



|Dated: April 13, 2005 |  | /s/Andre MaisonneuveAndre Maisonneuve
Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### § 491.5 Costs.

The Postal Service's administrative costs in executing the garnishment action shall be added to each garnishment and the costs recovered shall be retained as offsetting collections. The Postal Service reserves the right to redetermine the administrative cost of any garnishment if, in administering any garnishment, extra costs beyond those normally encountered are incurred, and add the extra cost to each garnishment. The extra costs recovered shall be retained as offsetting collections.
#### ISAAC DAYTON, Public Administrator, Respondent, *v.*JOHN McCAHILL and others, Appellants.

*Lease*— *renewal*— rights *of joint lessees.*

Upon the expiration of a lease containing a covenant for renewal, a new lease was executed to several persons claiming to be entitled thereto; under which one of the lessees therein named collected the rents from the sub-lessees of the premises, no opposition thereto or claim therefor being made by the lessor or any other person or persons.

In an action by one of the lessees to recover his share of the rents, *held,*that the *233person who had received them could not refuse to pay them over, on the ground that the persons to whom the lease had been made were not entitled to receive the same, under the covenant of renewal contained in the original lease. The second lease furnished sufficient authority to collect the rents, and, at the same time, imposed the obligation upon the party receiving the same, to pay over to the other lessees, in said renewal mentioned, their respective portions thereof. *(Niekolson*v. *Knowles,*5 Mad., 47; *Rixsony. Samond, 2*B. *&*Aid., 310; *Sardman*v. *Wilcox,*9 Bing., 38»; 23 E. C. L., 626; *Roberts*v. *Ogilby,*9 Price, 269; *Grosbie*v. *Leary,*6 Bosw., 312; *Merrittv. Millard,*10 id., 309; affirmed, 4 Keyes, 208; *Ross*v. *Curtiss,*31 N. Y., 606; *Aubery*v. *Visite,*36 id., 47.)

Appeal from a judgment recovered in favor of the defendant John McCahill, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as to him, without costs, and in favor of the plaintiff against Virginia P. Kelly, as executrix, for $5,538.55, besides costs, in an action for an accounting.

*Moses*Ely, for appellants. *Thomas Brachen,*for respondent.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Beady, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**





CERTIFICATION


I, Herman de Haas, certify that:





1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ITS Networks Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2004.2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); andc)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.




****Date: January 24, 2005
By:
/s/ Herman de HaasHerman de HaasExecutive Vice President,Chief Operating Officer andPrincipal Accounting and Financial Officer
Hillsborough

No. 78-030

#### City of Manchester v. Ronald Lawton *& a.*

February 6, 1978

*James A. Manning,*of Manchester, by brief and orally for the plaintiff.

*Cullity & Kelley,*of Manchester *(George W. Boussos*orally), for the defendant.

*90The city’s petition to abate a nuisance, RSA 47:17 XIY, alleged to have been created by a fire-damaged building was dismissed by the Superior Court (DiClerico, J.) this date on motion on the ground that RSA 155-B.-2 (Supp. 1975) deprived the superior court of its equity jurisdiction over the subject matter-. RSA 498:1. Because of the urgency of the matter, we expedited oral argument and rule that the remedy provided by RSA 155-B:2 (Supp. 1975) provides a supplemental remedy and does not deprive the superior court of its general equity powers. RSA 155-B:14 (Supp. 1975).

The motion to dismiss should not therefore have been granted.

*Exceptions sustained; remanded.*
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 527

To amend the Davis-Bacon Act to provide that a contractor under that

Act who has repeated violations of the Act shall have its contract with

the United States canceled and to require the disclosure under freedom

of information provisions of Federal law of certain payroll information

under contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Davis-Bacon Act to provide that a contractor

under that Act who has repeated violations of the Act

shall have its contract with the United States canceled

and to require the disclosure under freedom of information provisions of Federal law of certain payroll information under contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 527 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Enforce3 ment Act of 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. REPEATED VIOLATIONS.

5 Section 3 of the Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C.

6 276a–2) (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) is amended by

7 adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(c) If the Secretary determines that a contractor

9 under a contract with the United States has established

10 a pattern of violations of this Act, the Secretary shall can11 cel such contract and establish that such contractor is in12 eligible to receive a contract with the United States for

13 a 10 year period designated by the Secretary unless the

14 contractor is able to show the Secretary that such viola15 tions were not intentional but were the result of simple

16 and unsystematic error.

17 SEC. 3. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

18 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Section 552(a) of title 5,

19 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

20 following:

21 ‘‘(7) The names and addresses of employees in pay22 roll records established under a contract which is subject

23 to the Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a–2) (known

24 as the Davis-Bacon Act) shall be made available, notwith25 standing subsection (b)(6), for inspection in connection

26 with an audit to determine compliance with such Act.’’.
3

•HR 527 IH

1 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Section 552a of title 5, United

2 States Code, shall not be construed to prevent or prohibit

3 the disclosure required by section 552(a)(7) of title 5,

4 United States Code, as added by the amendment made

5 by subsection (a).

Æ