alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 2012

If soil health is 

your goal, till 

as little as 

possible. 

Tillage can destroy soil organic matter and 

structure along with the habitat that soil 

organisms need. Tillage, especially during 

warmer months, reduces water infiltration, 

increases runoff and can make the soil less 

productive. Tillage disrupts the soil’s natural 

biological cycles, damages the structure of the 

soil, and makes soil more susceptible to erosion.

Benefits of ReducedTill/No-Till

Aiding in Plant Growth – Soils managed with 

reduced/no-till for several years contain more 

organic matter and moisture for plant use. 

Healthy soils cycle crop nutrients, support root 

growth, absorb water and sequester carbon 

more efficiently. 

Reducing Soil Erosion – Soil that is covered 

year-round with crops, crop residue, grass or 

cover crops is much less susceptible to erosion 

from wind and water. For cropping systems, 

practices like no-till keep soil undisturbed from 

harvest to planting. 

Saving Money – Farmers can save money on fuel 

and labor by decreasing tillage. Improving nutrient 

cycling allows farmers to potentially reduce the 

amount of supplemental nutrients required to 

maintain yields, further reducing input costs. 

do not 

disturb

unlock your farm’s potential
Providing Wildlife Habitat – Crop 

residue, grass and cover crops provide 

food and escape for wildlife.

Production Inputs 

Soils can be disturbed if inputs are not applied 

properly, potentially disrupting the delicate 

relationship between plants and soil organisms. 

Soil Health Management Systems help minimize 

that potential disturbance, while maximizing 

nutrient cycling, which can lead to greater 

profitability for producers.

Livestock Grazing

Improperly managed grazing can disturb the 

soil. There are several ways to graze livestock 

to reduce environmental impacts. For example, 

implementing a rotational grazing system 

instead of allowing livestock to continuously 

graze pasture allows pasture plants to rest 

and regrow. 

Soil Health Management 

Systems

Implementing Soil Health Management Systems 

can lead to increased organic matter, more soil 

organisms, reduced soil compaction and improved 

nutrient storage and cycling. As an added bonus, 

fully functioning, healthy soils absorb and retain 

more water, making them less susceptible to 

runoff and erosion. This means more water will 

be available for crops when they need it. 

Soil Health Management Systems allow farmers to 

enjoy profits over time because they spend less on 

fuel and energy while benefiting from the higher 

crop yields resulting from improved soil conditions. 

Healthy soils also provide a buffer for precipitation 

extremes (too wet or too dry).

Contact your local NRCS office to learn more about 

Soil Health Management Systems and the technical 

and financial assistance available to help “Unlock 

the Secrets in the Soil.”

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carlos T. SINGLETON, Appellant.

No. 00-3099.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 12, 2001.

Before WILLIAMS, RANDOLPH, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

*5ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment be affirmed. The district court’s decision to credit the testimony of Detective Lorenzo James at the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress over that of appellant was not “clearly erroneous.” *United States v. Simpson,*992 F.2d 1224, 1226 (D.C.Cir.), *cert. denied,*510 U.S. 906, 114 S.Ct. 286, 126 L.Ed.2d 236 (1993). Therefore, the district court properly admitted the challenged statement. The prosecution produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to determine “Exhibit 1” was a “firearm.” *See Parker v. United States,*801 F.2d 1382, 1384 (D.C.Cir.1986). Assuming the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument was improper, *cf. United States v. Catlett,*97 F.3d 565 (D.C.Cir.1996), Singleton did not suffer “substantial prejudice.” *See Id.; United States v. Gartmon,*146 F.3d 1015 (D.C.Cir.1998).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
[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: Preliminaryaccount of Goldfield, Bullfrog, and other mining districts in southern Nevada**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:303
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957654
 
July 25, 2018
Case 3:06-cr-05151-MAT Document 9 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 1
From: rogerbye1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:57:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

ROGER BYE

Saint Paul, MN 55112
From: davemarie@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:18:20 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Berg

Lubbock, TX 79414
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2003,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify that:

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

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
March 6, 2007
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68122-68123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21818]

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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Notice-C0A-2023-01; Docket No. 2023-0002; Sequence No. 35]

Office of Human Resources Management; SES Performance Review 
Board

AGENCY: Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of new members to 
the GSA Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. The 
Performance Review Board assures consistency, stability, and 
objectivity in the performance appraisal process.

DATES: Applicable: October 3, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Nathaniel Williams, Acting 
Director, Executive Resources Division, Office of Human Resources 
Management, GSA, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, or via 
telephone at (571) 513-9451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5 
U.S.C requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulation 
prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES 
performance review board(s). The board is responsible for making 
recommendations to the appointing and awarding authority on the 
performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for employees in 
the Senior Executive Service.
    The following have been designated as members of the Performance 
Review Board of GSA:
     Katy Kale, Deputy Administrator--PRB Chair.
     Christopher Bennethum, Assistant Commissioner for Assisted 
Acquisition Services, Federal Acquisition Service.
     Lesley Briante, Associate Chief Information Officer for 
Enterprise Planning & Governance, Office of GSA IT.
     Krystal Brumfield, Associate Administrator for Government-
wide Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
     Andrew Heller, Deputy Commissioner for Enterprise 
Strategy, Public Buildings Service.
     Jeffrey Lau, Regional Commissioner, Federal Acquisition 
Service, Northeast and Caribbean Region.
     Dena McLaughlin, Regional Commissioner, Federal 
Acquisition Service, Mid-Atlantic Region.

[[Page 68123]]

     Flavio Peres, Assistant Commissioner for Real Property 
Disposition, Public Buildings Service.
     Joanna Rosato, Regional Commissioner, Public Buildings 
Service, Mid-Atlantic Region.
     Camille Sabbakhan, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the 
General Counsel.

Robin Carnahan,
Administrator, General Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-21818 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-FM-P
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50690

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MERCED MADRID-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-03-CR-11-3

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Merced Madrid-Rodriguez was convicted on his conditional

guilty plea of possession with intent to distribute marihuana. He

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and

argues that the stop of the truck in which he was a passenger was

not supported by reasonable suspicion and, as a result, the2

marihuana seized and the post-arrest statements he made should be

suppressed.

The following facts, among others, were considered in

determining that there was reasonable suspicion to support the stop

of the truck in which Madrid was a passenger: (1) at the time the

truck was initially spotted, it was very close to an illegal border

crossing and was traveling directly behind a white Oldsmobile,

which was the subject of a BOLO repor t and owned by a known drug

trafficker; (2) the truck matched the description of a truck owned

by a known drug trafficker; (3) both the Oldsmobile and the truck

had two-way radio antennas attached to the roofs; (4) the truck was

stopped in an area known for illegal trafficking; (5) the area in

which the truck was traveling is an area known to be used for

circumventing a checkpoint; (6) t he agents were experienced in

cases involving illegal aliens and controlled substances; (7) the

driver of the truck dece lerated and accelerated for no apparent

reason and immediately braked and veered onto the shoulder of the

road when he saw a marked patrol car; (8) when a helicopter was

approximately 50 feet away from the truck, the driver of the truck

did not acknowledge the helicopter but merely maintained his speed;

and (9) when t he truck hit bumps and turned a corner sharply,

diesel fuel was emitted from the fuel tank.

Border Patrol Agents on roving patrols may make a temporary

investigative stop of a car if they are aware of specific,3

articulable facts that reasonably warrant suspicion to believe that

criminal activity may be afoot. U nited States v. Arvizo

, 534 U.S.

266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750 (2002). As a result of the foregoing

facts, we conclude that there was reasonable suspicion to support

the stop of the truck. Accordingly, the district court did not err

in denying the motion to suppress the seizure of the marihuana and

the post-arrest statements made by Madrid. S ee United States v.

Inocencio , 40 F.3d 716, 722-24 (5th Cir. 1994).

Thus, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Peter J. Scanlon, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Startech
     Environmental Corporation;

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, and 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 have:

     a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls or 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 the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
         operation of internal control 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
         controls over financial reporting.

Date: June 19, 2007

By:    /s/ Peter J. Scanlon
       --------------------
       Peter J. Scanlon
       Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Vice President, and
       Principal Financial Officer
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 6, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.225  Life Insurance and Pension Fund Reserves** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 15.4

March 30, 2010

China Distance Education Holdings Limited (the Company)

18th Floor, Xueyuan International Tower

1 Zhichun Road, Haidian District

Beijing 100083, Peoples Republic of China

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have acted as legal
advisors as to the laws of the Peoples Republic of China to the Company in connection with the filing by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of an annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2009 and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report).

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name
and our opinions and views in the Annual Report. We further consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to the Annual Report.

In
giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Sincerely yours,



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Jingtian & Gongcheng

Jingtian & Gongcheng
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 1 of 40

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 76 Att. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 2 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 3 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 4 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 5 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 6 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 7 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 8 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 9 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 10 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 11 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 12 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 13 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 14 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 15 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 16 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 17 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 18 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 19 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 20 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 21 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 22 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 23 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 24 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 25 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 26 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 27 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 28 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 29 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 30 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 31 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 32 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 33 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 34 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 35 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 36 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 37 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 38 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 39 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 76-5 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 40 of 40