alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
5600

5900

5700

5900

5800

5800

6000

6000

4800

580

5

0

100

5900

5100

4700

5800

5400

5200

6100

5400

4800

5400

5400

5800

5900 5300

5500

5900

5600

5400

5300

6000

4900

5500

5900

5400

5600

4500

5700

5900

5700

5200

5300

5000

4900

5900

5500

5100

5800

5200

5500

5500

5600

6100

5700

5000

5700

5700

5200

5900

5300

5800

5700

5900

5700

5700

R O W L A N D R O U T E R D

R O W L A N D R O U T E R D

R O W L A N D R O U T E R D

Cat Creek

Cat Creek

Cat Creek

Slaug

hterh

o

use

Creek

Cougar Creek

Deep Creek

Slaughterhouse

Creek

Cat Creek

Cat Creek

Bruneau

River

Brun

ea

u

River

Bruneau River

Bruneau River

Bru

n

ea

u

River

Bernards

Bedground

Triplet

Canyon

Hole in

the Ground

Cedar

Draw

Black

Rock

Rizzi

Table

Triplet

Butte

Black

Stone

Fred Hall

Homestead

Squaw

Camp

Black Rock

Crossing

Black

Rock

Pocket

42°

30" 40' 115°

42°

115°

42'

40'

42°

42'30" 115°

42°

115°

2' 2'

5' 5'

FEET

160

E

2

6

46

46

46

46

46

6

6

46

6

46

46

6

6

46

46

46

6 6

46

6 6 6

46

46

46

46

46

6

46

6

6

46

46

6

46

46

6

45'

45' 37'30"

07'30"

00'

37'

00'

07'

30"

30"

30" 30"

000

000m

000m

000m

000m

46

46

6

46

6

46

46

6

46

61

09

56

10

64

05 07

60

06

08 09

N

63

04

58

10

52

62

E

04

54

05 08

N

53

12

51

11

59

57

13

13

06 11

55

12

63

60

53

62

51

55

56

61

58

57

64

54

59

52

FEET

650 000

130 000

000

FEET

2 630 FEET

Antelope

Creek

Big

Table

Hicks

Mountain

Black

Leg Creek

Triguero

Lake

Triplet

Butte

The Arch

Bearpaw

Mountain

Cowan

Reservoir

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

IDAHO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

TRIPLET BUTTE, ID

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

TRIPLET BUTTE QUADRANGLE

IDAHO

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 11T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Idaho Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery.................................NAIP, July 2009 - August 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2002

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

M

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 N

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 53 ́

16 MILS

13° 51 ́

246 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

11T

PG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
Exhibit 15.1[Conyers Dill & Pearman Letterhead]26 June 2009   Focus Media Holding Limited DIRECT LINE: 2842 9556 / 2842 955028-30/F Zhao Feng World Trade Building E-MAIL: christopher.bickley@conyersdillandpearman.com369 Jiangsu Road / brian.lee@conyersdillandpearman.comShanghai 100032 OUR REF: CB/BLHK/rc/M//873588/D#298646China YOUR REF:Attention: Mr. Alex YangDear Sirs:We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Taxation — Cayman Islands” in theannual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of Focus Media HoldingLimited to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about 29 June 2009.Yours faithfully,/s/ Conyers Dill & Pearman
#### Arlene OTIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, Defendant, Chief Keith Winger; Captain Mike Ryan; Lieutenant Banick; Lieutenant Tomalla, Appellees, Officer Herbert, Badge No. 439, Defendant, Bill Kebbe, Chief of Security of Maplewood Mall, Appellee.

No. 00-3995.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.

Filed July 16, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arlene Otis appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her civil lawsuit for failure to comply with a discovery order. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing certain defendants as to whom Otis failed to provide requested information, and ultimately dismissing the entire case when Otis failed to comply with a discovery order. *See Schoffstall v.*
      *493
      *Henderson,*223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir.2000) (district court may dismiss case for willful violation of order compelling discovery, if opposing party is prejudiced by violation).

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

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Simon Anderson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 473]

—Motion by the appellant, *pro se,*for reargument of his application for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated October 18, 1993 *(People v Anderson,*197 AD2d 943), affirming a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County, imposed August 13, 1992, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which application was denied by decision and order of this Court dated March 6, 1995.

Ordered that the motion is denied. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.
No. 69336.

#### Rover, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/11213 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
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 In connection with the Annual Report of




Rampart Studios

, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G.J. de Klerk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ G.J. de KlerkPrincipal Executive Officer 


April 19, 2013
IV 

House Calendar No. 99 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 597 

[Report No. 110–288] 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill 

(H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and development of water 

and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the 

United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1 (legislative day, JULY 31), 2007 

Ms. MATSUI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and 

harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservaVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:21 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR597.RH HR597

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

HRES 597 RH 

1 tion and development of water and related resources, to 

2 authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various 

3 projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the 

4 United States, and for other purposes. All points of order 

5 against the conference report and against its consideration 

6 are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 

7 read. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 99 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 597 

[Report No. 110

–288] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report 

States, and for other purposes. provements to rivers and harbors of the United the Army to construct various projects for imrelated resources, to authorize the Secretary of the conservation and development of water and to accompany the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for 

AUGUST 1 (legislative day, JULY 31), 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
EPA ICR No. 2488.01; Attachment J April 3, 2013

Attachment J: Page 1

EDSP Mock-up Screenshots

The Agency will require Order Recipients to submit completed study profiles, supporting data, 

and all related correspondence electronically using the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), 

the point of entry on the Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) for 

environmental submissions to the Agency.

This attachment provides screenshots of the front-end industry user interface for the following 

workflows:

• Individual 90-Day Response

• Individual Post-90-Day Response

• Consortium Initial Response

• Consortium Post-Initial Response

• Voluntary Submission

EPA is in the process of finalizing the electronic system design and intends to pilot test it 

before issuing any new EDSP Tier 1 Orders.
TDD 9.21 OPPT MTS EDSP 

Mock-up Screenshots

April 03, 2013
Screenshots Included

• Individual 90-Day Response

• Individual Post-90-Day Response

• Consortium Initial Response

• Consortium Post-Initial Response

• Voluntary Submission

2
Frontend Industry User 

Interface – Individual 90-Day 

Response

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Frontend Industry User 

Interface – Individual Post-90-

Day Response

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Frontend Industry User 

Interface – Consortium Initial 

Response

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Frontend Industry User 

Interface - Consortium PostInitial Response

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Frontend Industry User 

Interface – Voluntary 

Submission

65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
#### Willie CHESTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-10017.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 26, 2005.

Willie Chester, Seagoville, TX, pro se.

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Chester, federal prisoner No. 56341-080, appeals the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging Chester’s 1992 Western District of Texas convictions and sentences as a career criminal for possession of a firearm by a felon and for making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm. The district court denied relief because it determined that Chester’s claims sounded as an unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and found that Chester had not made the showing necessary to seek 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief by means of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Chester does not challenge this determination by the district court, he has waived the only issue relevant to his appeal. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/20/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Meeting with Atlanta Metro Chamber held on 08/05/2014

SUMMARY: 

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees at the Atlanta Metro chamber 

Environmental Policy and Sustainability Committee meeting (names listed below) on 

08/05/2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean 

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

Beth Conlin/EPA OAR/OAP

Erich Eschmann/EPA OAR/OAP

External Stakeholders

Kurt Kuehn/UPS

Ron Shipman/GA Power

Tim Echols/GA PSC

Anup Shah/Metro Atlanta PSC

Chuck Meadows/Metro Atlanta Chamber

Other Committee members

ATTACHMENT
[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: TheYampa coal field, Routt county, Colorado**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:297
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957597
 
July 25, 2018
MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

REGULATION II

PERMITS

10/16/02 Rule 203 (Application)

1

RULE 203. APPLICATION

(Adopted 1-19-70; Revised 12-21-83, 12-13-84, and 3-21-2001; and 10-16-02.)

CONTENTS

PART 1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Applicability ........................................................1

1.3 Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.4 Effective Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART 2 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.1 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.2 Separate Application for each Permit Unit .................................2

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Rule is to establish provisions for permit applications. 

1.2 Applicability

The provisions of this Rule shall apply to any person who applies for a District Permit.

1.3 Exemptions

Reserved.
MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

REGULATION II

PERMITS

10/16/02 Rule 203 (Application)

2

1.4 Effective Dates

This Rule, as most recently revised, is effective on October 16, 2002.

1.5 References

The requirements of this Rule arise from the provisions of California Health and Safety

Code Sections 40702 and 42300. Referenced or related District Rules include: 101

(Definitions); 200 (Permits Required); 201 (Sources Not Requiring Permits); 206

(Standards for Issuing Authorities to Construct and Permits to Operate); and 207

(Review of New or Modified Sources).

PART 2 DEFINITIONS

Reserved.

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Application

Every application for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate required under

Rule 200 shall be filed in the manner and form prescribed by the District, and shall give

all the information necessary to enable the District to make determinations required by

Rules 206 and 207 hereof.

3.2 Separate Application for each Permit Unit

A separate application must be submitted to the District for each permit unit. After

reviewing an application, the District may require additional applications to be filed if

more than one permit unit is contained in the original application.

* * * * *
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LEONARD COULOMBE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOTAL RENAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC.;

DAVITA, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-504JLR

TAXATION OF COSTS

Having considered briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the cost bill herein, costs in the cause

indicated above are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF LEONARD COULOMBE , and on behalf of

DEFENDANTS TOTAL RENAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. and DAVITA, INC. in the amount of

$2,959.14 as follows:

Requested Disallowed Allowed

I. DEPOSITION COSTS $1,685.15 0 $1,685.15

Clerk allowed costs incurred for depositions actually used by either party in support of or in opposition

to motion for summary judgment.

II. WITNESS FEES $1,219.79 0 $1,219.79

Witness fees are taxable for individuals whose deposition was actually used by party. Costs would be

allowed even if individuals had been named parties, which they were not.

III. COPY COSTS $49.20 0 $49.20

Case 2:06-cv-00504-JLR Document 80 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Requested Disallowed Allowed

TAXATION OF COSTS -- 2

IV. DOCKET FEE $5.00 0 $5.00

Judgment was entered on May 7, 2007 and motion for costs filed in a timely manner on May 29, 2007.

Dated this 11th day of JUNE, 2007 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00504-JLR Document 80 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2
(V.D. 126)

#### Old Delft Optical Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 845924.

(Decided September 9, 1963)

*Tompkins £ Tompkins*for tbe plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the third division of this court in *Old Delft Optical Co., Inc.*v. *United*States, *47*Cust. Ct. 365, Abstract 66210. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that since no proper notice of appraisement was sent by the collector to the consignee, his agent, or attorney, the appraisement of the merchandise and the subsequent liquidation were invalid. The protest was, therefore, dismissed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable value, in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)), of the 25 scanning stereoscopes, exported from Holland in December 1957, which are covered by the entry involved herein.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the present merchandise, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is 1,750 florins for each scanning stereoscope, plus packing, as invoiced, prorated.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.230 Identified Miscellaneous Financial Claims - Part I** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR TO DATE AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000876428
<NAME> SYSTEMIX, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,995
<SECURITIES>                                    48,373
<RECEIVABLES>                                      259
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,791
<PP&E>                                          73,424
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,270
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,251
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,907)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,824)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.92)
        

</TABLE>
No. 66564.

#### The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/25579 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ball cock assemblies, which are constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C.D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.