alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 of 1

EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act TAS Provision–Meeting with the 

National Tribal Caucus (NTC) of the EPA National Tribal Operations Committee (NTOC)

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Meeting Summary

EPA Presenter: Elizabeth Southerland, Director, EPA Office of Science and Technology

Participants: Approximately 20 members of the Caucus

The potential reinterpretation of the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act was one of 

several on the agenda. Two documents that were made available to participants at the meeting 

are available in the docket for this rulemaking:

 Clean Water Act Tribal Provision: Overview, prepared by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Water and Office of General Counsel, May 2015.

 Clean Water Act Tribal Provision: Discussion Paper, prepared by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and Office of General Counsel, May 

2015.

Elizabeth Southerland provided a brief overview of the potential action. 

Several participants expressed their support for the action. Participants raised no questions or 

issues.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STAFF LEASING, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          26,318
<SECURITIES>                                     4,949
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                       893
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,105
<PP&E>                                          22,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,221
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,565
<SALES>                                        480,902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               480,902
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  455,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,587
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
FP Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-32788) on Form S-8 of FP Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 20, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of FP Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary
as of December 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December
31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-KSB of FP Bancorp, Inc.



                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


San Diego, California
March 10, 1998
N. Y. SUPREME COURT.

#### Elizabeth M. Conkling agt. Henry E Davies and Julien T. Davies.

*Peed of trust—Action to reform and revolee*— *Parties.*

In an action to reform and revoke a deed of trust all the beneficiaries named in the deed are necessary parties.

They are entitled to be heard upon the question as to whether the deed should have contained a power of revocation.

*Special Term, May,*1877.

This is an action to reform and revoke a deed of trust made by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The said deed conveyed to the defendants certain property in trust to collect the income and profits of the same and pay the same to the plaintiff during her life, and after her death to pay such income to one Elizabeth T. Conkling, and after her death to divide the principal among certain persons in said deed named. It also conveys certain other property, the income of which, after the death of the plaintiff, is directed by said deed to be paid to certain other parties. Hone of the parties entitled to share in the estate by the terms of the deed after the death of the plaintiff are made parties to the action. The defendants demur to thé complaint upon the ground of defect of parties.

*Horace Barnard,*for plaintiff.

*Ashbel Green,*for defendants.

*410Van Brunt, *J.*

The plaintiff claims that the beneficiaries named in the deed are not necessary parties because the deed as drawn does not contain a power of revocation which she claims should have1 been inserted therein pursuant to her directions, and if such power of revocation was in the deed she would clearly have the right to the relief asked for in this action.

I am entirely unable to see why the beneficiaries are not entitled to be heard upon that question. By means of this action it is sought to deprive them of all interest under this deed without giving them an opportunity to be heard upon the question. They are certainly as necessary parties as the trustees under the deed, and any decree which the court might make in this action could not deprive them of the contingent interest which they had under, the deed, they 'not being parties to the action. The demurrer must therefore be sustained, with leave to the plaintiff to amend upon payment of costs.
From: Miller, Paul E. (paem)**Shared adril36** [mailto:PAEM@chevron.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:12 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

It's my money. I've worked my entire life for this. Keep your hands off. 

Paul Miller
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David A. Kindlick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004,
of South Jersey Gas Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 9, 2004             /s/   David A. Kindlick
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                 David A. Kindlick
                                 Executive Vice President &
                                  Chief Financial Officer
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (6.09 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,536
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     31,201
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          27,992
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            28,750
<LOANS>                                        139,547
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 211,742
<DEPOSITS>                                     175,791
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,324
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,357
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,238
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 211,742
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,558
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,541
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   106
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,205
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,835
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,347
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,858
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      444
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,787
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,847
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,847
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.52
<LOANS-NON>                                        268
<LOANS-PAST>                                       319
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,023
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      289
<RECOVERIES>                                        61
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,239
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,239
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            590


</TABLE>
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 430

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the use

of content labeling for Internet web sites of Members of the House

of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 2002

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr.

ETHERIDGE, Mr. CANNON, Mr. SMITH of Washington, and Ms.

LOFGREN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the use of content labeling for Internet web sites

of Members of the House of Representatives.

Whereas Internet content labeling and filtering tools are valuable resources for the safe use of the Internet by children; and

Whereas it is in the public interest that Members of the

House of Representatives configure their Internet web

sites in a manner consistent with such tools in order to

make the Internet safer for children while protecting

freedom of expression: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 430 IH

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that each Member of the House of Represent3 atives should provide for the labeling of the content of the

4 Member’s Internet web site in a manner consistent with

5 the labeling system utilized by the Internet Content Rat6 ing Association (ICRA) and other recognized voluntary

7 Internet content filtering organizations.

Æ
#### JOHN STROUGH, Respondent, *v.*EDWIN S. BROWN, Appellant.

*Statute of frauds*— *a promise to pay the debt of another must be supported, by a valuable*consideration.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton county, in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff, a blacksmith, did work for one Nathan Brown, father of defendant, for which Nathan became indebted to him in a sum of upwards of thirty dollars. The plaintiff and Nathan then had some words and plaintiff told Nathan he would do no more work for him. Afterwards the defendant requested the plaintiff to do some work for him, and plaintiff told him he would not do it upon the account of Nathan. Defendant said: “ I want you to do my work and I will pay you.” Plaintiff said: “ How about that account of your father’s that stands back yet.” Defendant said: “I will pay you the whole.” The plaintiff afterwards did some work for defendant and received some merchandise from him at a price amounting to more than the price of the work done for defendant. Afterwards the plaintiff and defendant together adjusted the accounts of the plaintiff against both Nathan and the defendant, *308treating them as one account against the defendant, and after allowing credits, including the merchandise furnished plaintiff by defendant, found a balance of thirty dollars and twenty-seven cents in plaintiff’s favor. For this balance the defendant gave this due bill:

“ 1877, *Marroh 9th-*

“This day settled in full and found due John Strough thirty dollars and twenty-seven cents.

“EDWIN S. BROWN.”

The court at General Term said: *“*The plaintiff upon the trial recovered the amount of this due bill. Upon his own account the defendant owed plaintiff nothing, and although the above instrument is a promissory note the consideration may be inquired into between the parties. The note is in fact a promise by defendant to pay the debt of Nathan Brown, and is within the statute of frauds unless it was made upon a consideration moving to the promisor and beneficia1 to him. This settlement was made in pursuance of the defendant’s promise to pay Nathan’s back account. If the plaintiff would do work for him he said he would pay the whole, that is, the amount of the indebtedness he should incur and the amount his father had already incurred. The plaintiff was to work for the defendant for full compensation for that work, and therefore that work and the compensation for it so balanced each other that there was no unsatisfied overplus of work to be done that could form any consideration for the promise of the defendant to pay his father’s debt.” *(Pfeiffer*v. *Adler,*37 N. Y., 164; *BeCk/na/p*v. Bender, 75 id., 446.)

*J. M. c& H. Dudley &*Thorne, for the appellant.

*Orumby <& Jones,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Landon, J.;

Learned, P. J.,

concurred.

Present — Learned, P. J., and Landon, J.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
33-50447  and  Post-Effective  Amendment  No. 1 to  Registration  Statement  No.
333-54025 of Columbus  Southern  Power  Company on Form S-3 of our reports dated
February 21, 2003,  appearing  in and  incorporated  by reference in this Annual
Report  on Form 10-K of  Columbus  Southern  Power  Company  for the year  ended
December 31, 2002.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Columbus, Ohio
March 20, 2003
# Death of Coalition Personnel

/ Published March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

Release # 20180330-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA –** Two Coalition personnel were killed and five were wounded by an improvised explosive device in Syria at approximately 9 p.m. GMT March 29.

Wounded personnel received immediate care and are being evacuated for further medical treatment.

The names of the deceased will be released at the discretion of the pertinent national authorities.

Details pertaining to the incident are being withheld pending further investigation.

- 30-
EXHIBIT 32.2

McDATA Corporation

Certification
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)

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), each of the
undersigned officers of McDATA Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: April 1, 2005 |  | /s/ERNEST J. SAMPIASErnest J. Sampias
Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QuickLinks
#### George Goetting, Appellant, v. Matthias Bichler and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Daniels. J.
# March 29: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published March 29, 2016

March 29, 2016Release # 20160329-01FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA****—** On March 28, coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq. In Iraq, Coalition military forces conducted four strikes coordinated with and in support of the Government of Iraq using attack aircraft against ISIL targets.The following is a summary of the strikes conducted against ISIL since the last press release:**Iraq***  Near Hit, two strikes struck an ISIL bed down location and an ISIL safe house.*  Near Sinjar, one strike destroyed two ISIL assembly areas and suppressed an ISIL machine gun position. *  Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike destroyed three ISIL assembly areas. Strike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely.A strike, as defined in the CJTF releases, means one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative effect for that location.  So having a single aircraft deliver a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of buildings and vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making that facility (or facilities) harder or impossible to use.  Accordingly, CJTF-OIR does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.Ground-based artillery fired in counter-fire or in fire support to maneuver roles are not classified as a strike as defined by CJTF-OIR.The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, and the wider international community.The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nations which have conducted strikes in Iraq include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Coalition nations which have conducted strikes in Syria include Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.