alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 389 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF LAKIN

Cite as 310 Neb. 389

In re Estate of Charles E. Lakin, deceased.

Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc., appellant, v. 

Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer, Copersonal 

Representatives of the Estate of 

Charles E. Lakin, appellees.

In re Trust of Charles E. Lakin, deceased.

Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc., appellant, v. 

Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer, Cotrustees 

of the Charles E. Lakin Revocable 

Trust, et al., appellees.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed November 19, 2021. Nos. S-20-093, S-20-094.

supplemental opinion

Appeals from the County Court for Douglas County: 

Stephanie S. Shearer, Judge. Former opinion modified. 

Motions for rehearing overruled.

Zachary W. Lutz-Priefert, Frederick D. Stehlik, William J. 

Lindsay, Jr., and John A. Svoboda, of Gross & Welch, P.C., 

L.L.O., for appellant.

Edward D. Hotz, Amanda M. Forker, and Benjamin C. 

Deaver, of Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., for 

defendants-appellees Thomas L. Pribil and William A. Kilzer.

Trenten P. Bausch and Megan S. Wright, of Cline, Williams, 

Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P., for appellee Thomas L. 

Pribil in his individual capacity.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

01/21/2022 12:08 AM CST
- 390 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF LAKIN

Cite as 310 Neb. 389

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim and Brian J. Brislen, of Lamson, 

Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellee William A. Kilzer, an 

individual.

Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and Freudenberg, 

JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on three motions for rehearing filed 

by the appellees, Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer—in their 

individual capacities and their capacities as copersonal representatives and cotrustees—concerning our opinion in In re 

Estate of Lakin.

 1 While there is no substantive merit to the 

motions, Pribil and Kilzer point out that this court incorrectly 

found that the check used to pay Pribil was not in our record. 

The check appears in exhibit 59.

We overrule the motions, but modify the original opinion 

to substitute language as follows. In the paragraph under the 

subheading “7. § 6-1437,” we withdraw the third and fourth 

sentences and substitute: “Our record is not clear on the 

source of the payment and the capacity of the person making 

the payment.”

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

Former opinion modified.

Motions for rehearing overruled.

Miller-Lerman and Papik, JJ., not participating.

1 In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021).
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John F. Burke, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Annuity and Life Re(Holdings), Ltd.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 5, 2004
/s/ John F. BurkeName: John F. Burke
January 2023 to January 2024 Schedule

For Treasury-Disbursed Recurring Benefit Payments

Settlement Dates

Agency Jan’23 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan’24

OPM Office of Personnel Management

Civil Service Retirement/Annuity

1/3** 2/1 3/1 4/3** 5/1 6/1 7/3** 8/1 9/1 10/2** 11/1 12/1 1/2**

RRB Railroad Retirement Board 

Railroad Retirement/Annuity

1/3** 2/1 3/1 4/3** 5/1 6/1 7/3** 8/1 9/1 10/2** 11/1 12/1 1/2**

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

Compensation and Pension

12/30* 2/1 3/1 3/31* 5/1 6/1 6/30* 8/1 9/1 9/29* 11/1 12/1 12/29*

SSA Social Security Administration

3rd of Month

1/3 2/3 3/3 4/3 5/3 6/2* 7/3 8/3 9/1* 10/3 11/3 12/1* 1/3

SSA 

Cycle -2 2nd Wednesday

1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/14 7/12 8/9 9/13 10/11 11/8 12/13 1/10

SSA

Cycle -3 3rd Wednesday

1/18 2/15 3/15 4/19 5/17 6/21 7/19 8/16 9/20 10/18 11/15 12/20 1/17

SSA

Cycle -4 4th Wednesday

1/25 2/22 3/22 4/26 5/24 6/28 7/26 8/23 9/27 10/25 11/22 12/27 1/24

SSI 

Supplemental Security Income

12/30* 2/1 3/1 3/31* 5/1 6/1 6/30* 8/1 9/1 9/29* 11/1 12/1 12/29*

DOL-Black Lung

(Legacy Payments)

1/3 2/3 3/3 4/3 5/3 6/2* 7/3 8/3 9/1* 10/3 11/3 12/1* 1/3

DOL – Black Lung

(New Enrollees)

1/13* 2/15 3/15 4/14* 5/15 6/15 7/14* 8/15 9/15 10/13* 11/15 12/15 1/15

.

* = Settlement Date Adjusted to the Preceding Business Day

** = Settlement Date Adjusted to the Following Business Day

Prepared by the U. S. Department of the Treasury/Bureau of the Fiscal Service January 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TRAVIS ELLIOTT,

1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT 

SERVICES/JUDY JORDAN,

Respondent Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 339, 2021

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File No. CN11-03130

§ Petition No. 20-21502

§

§

§

§

Submitted: October 29, 2021

Decided: November 4, 2021

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,

Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 

it appears to the Court that:

(1) On October 21, 2021, the appellant, Travis Elliott, filed a notice of 

appeal from a Family Court Commissioner’s order reducing his child support 

obligation. On October 22, 2021, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice, by certified 

mail, directing Elliott to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for this 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2

Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal directly from a Family Court 

Commissioner’s order.

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Elliott states that he 

intended the notice of appeal to be a cross-appeal of the request for review of the 

Commissioner’s order filed by the appellee in the Family Court. The notice of 

appeal refers to both this Court and the Family Court, but Elliott addressed and 

mailed the notice of appeal to this Court. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

an appeal directly from a Commissioner’s decision.

2

 Elliott’s appeal must therefore 

be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

Justice

2 10 Del. C. § 915(d) (providing that a party may appeal a Commissioner’s order to a Family Court 

judge); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 53.1 (same).
**Exhibit 12****AMERUS GROUP CO.**EXHIBIT 12 — STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOSRATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS($ in thousands, except ratio data)                               Six Months Ended June 30,  Years Ended December 31,   2006  2005  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001 Earnings                            Pre-tax income from continuing operations $194,966  $115,624  $260,347  $228,294  $239,238  $89,157  $119,377 Less: Income (loss) from equity investees  4,289   3,180   12,161   8,105   12,563   (3,993)  5,072 Add: Distributed income from equity investees  550   180   1,912   564   1,521   2,591   7,730         191,227   112,624   250,098   220,753   228,196   95,741   122,035                              Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends  225,640   255,800   562,900   556,985   570,646   492,093   371,667 Less: Preferred stock dividends not included in pre-tax income  5,438   —   2,417   —   —   —   — Less: Tax gross up on preferred stock dividends  2,788   —   874   —   —   —   —                                   Total Earnings $408,641  $368,424  $809,707  $777,738  $798,842  $587,834  $493,702                                   Combined Fixed Charges                            Interest credited to policyowners $198,829  $238,950  $506,612  $523,231  $538,622  $464,022  $341,575 Interest expense on debt  17,430   15,971   32,173   32,120   30,154   25,487   26,011 Early extinguishment of debt  —   —   19,082   —   —   —   — Amortization of debt issuance costs  623   465   878   928   1,137   985   3,155 Estimate of interest within rental expense  532   414   864   706   733   1,599   926 Preferred stock dividends  5,438   —   2,417   —   —   —   — Tax gross up on preferred stock dividends  2,788   —   874   —   —   —   —                                   Total Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends $225,640  $255,800  $562,900  $556,985  $570,646  $492,093  $371,667                                   Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends  1.81   1.44   1.44   1.40   1.40   1.19   1.33      
51
Mar 2023 Mar 2024 FY 2023 FY 2024

Act Act $ % $ % Act Act $ % $ %

Individual Withheld & FICA Taxes $322 $330 $8 2% $22 7% $1,676 $1,722 $45 3% $45 3%

Other Individual & SECA Taxes $32 $30 -$2 -6% -$2 -6% $281 $316 $34 12% $34 12%

Individual Refunds (-) $73 $61 -$11 -16% -$11 -16% $192 $167 -$26 -13% -$26 -13%

Other Social Ins Taxes $2 $2 $0 -5% $0 -5% $24 $21 -$3 -11% -$3 -11%

Gross Corporate Taxes $15 $18 $3 24% $3 24% $159 $210 $51 32% $51 32%

Corporate Refunds (-) $3 $3 $0 3% $0 3% $19 $21 $2 10% $2 10%

Federal Reserve Earnings $0 $0 $0 689% $0 689% $1 $1 $0 54% $0 54%

Gross Excise Taxes $8 $7 -$1 -8% -$1 -8% $44 $45 $1 3% $1 3%

Customs Duties $7 $7 $0 -1% $0 -1% $45 $41 -$4 -9% -$4 -9%

Other $4 $3 -$1 -32% -$1 -32% $30 $20 -$10 -33% -$10 -33%

Total Budget Receipts $313 $332 $19 6% $33 11% $2,048 $2,188 $140 7% $140 7%

Agriculture $18 $15 -$3 -16% -$3 -16% $132 $112 -$20 -15% -$20 -15%

Defense Military Programs $79 $66 -$13 -17% -$9 -12% $386 $410 $24 6% $29 7%

Education $38 $10 -$28 -74% -$28 -74% $124 $81 -$43 -35% -$43 -35%

Health and Human Services (HHS)2 $201 $144 -$57 -28% -$10 -6% $843 $811 -$32 -4% $22 3%

 HHS - Medicare $131 $83 -$48 -37% -$1 -2% $495 $477 -$18 -4% $36 7%

 HHS - Medicaid $64 $56 -$8 -12% -$8 -12% $310 $304 -$5 -2% -$5 -2%

 HHS - Other $5 $5 -$1 -12% -$1 -12% $38 $30 -$8 -21% -$8 -21%

Homeland Security $8 $8 $0 -5% $0 -5% $45 $44 -$1 -3% -$1 -3%

Housing and Urban Development $5 $9 $3 61% $3 61% $29 $36 $6 22% $6 22%

Labor $5 $10 $5 90% $5 90% $59 $29 -$30 -51% -$30 -51%

Transportation $7 $8 $0 3% $0 3% $48 $50 $2 5% $2 5%

Treasury2 $109 $122 $13 12% $13 12% $541 $653 $112 21% $112 21%

 Treasury - Interest on the Public Debt $78 $89 $11 14% $11 14% $384 $522 $138 36% $138 36%

 Treasury - EITC/CTC/Other IRS $33 $35 $2 5% $2 5% $152 $135 -$17 -11% -$17 -11%

 Treasury - Coronavirus Relief Fund $0 $0 $0 93% $0 93% $1 $0 $0 -59% $0 -59%

 Treasury - Other -$2 -$2 $0 -21% $0 -21% $4 -$4 -$8 -197% -$8 -197%

Veterans Affairs $40 $29 -$11 -27% $1 3% $145 $151 $6 4% $20 14%

Other Defense Civil Programs $11 $6 -$5 -45% $0 4% $36 $32 -$4 -11% $2 5%

Office of Personnel Management $10 $10 $0 -3% $0 -3% $61 $62 $2 3% $2 3%

Social Security Administration $125 $128 $3 2% $8 6% $686 $741 $56 8% $61 9%

Interest Received by Trust Funds -$10 -$7 $2 -25% $2 -25% -$76 -$82 -$5 7% -$5 7%

Other $44 $11 -$32 -74% -$32 -74% $90 $120 $30 33% $30 33%

Total Budget Outlays $692 $569 -$123 -18% -$50 -8% $3,149 $3,253 $103 3% $186 6%

Net Budget Results -$378 -$236 $142 -38% $84 -26% -$1,101 -$1,065 $36 -3% -$46 4%

On Budget3 -$370 -$223 $147 -40% -$1,075 -$1,014 $61 -6%

Off Budget -$8 -$14 -$5 61% -$26 -$51 -$25 93%

Total -$378 -$236 $142 -38% -$1,101 -$1,065 $36 -3%

1

 Totals and differences may not sum due to rounding. NM - Not Meaningful

2

 Agency totals include other components beyond subcategories shown.

3

 On-budget results exclude activity of the Social Security Trust Funds and the U.S. Postal Service. 

Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Summary through March 20241

($ Billion)

Adjusted Differences:

Fiscal Year to Date

Budget Category Differences: Adjusted Differences: Differences:

Current Month
# C_2018072EN.01003401.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN)

(Case T-273/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark METAPORN - Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier figurative marks meta4 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the services - Meaning of complementary services - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 072/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Joined Cases R 653/2015-2 and R 674/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meta4 Spain and Sun Media.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0502

_________________

GATEWAY HOSPITALITY GROUP INC., 

WESTERN HOSPITALITY GROUP, LP, d/b/a 

HILTON GARDEN INN MISSOULA; KALISPELL 

HOTEL, LLC, d/b/a HILTON GARDEN INN 

KALISPELL; BOZEMAN LODGING INVESTORS,

LLC, d/b/a HILTON GARDEN INN BOZEMAN; 

JWT HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a HILTON 

GARDEN INN BILLINGS, and JOHN DOES 1-5,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Shane Vannatta, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 4 2020

03/04/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0502
# C_2017030EN.01001601.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-521/16)

(2017/C 030/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter

Applicants:

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that avoidability relates only to the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances or also to the consequences of the extraordinary circumstances, namely cancellation or major delay? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that avoidability relates only to the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances or also to the consequences of the extraordinary circumstances, namely cancellation or major delay?

1

| 2. | If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight?

| 3. | If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: is booking a sub-charter flight unreasonable if the cost is approximately three times higher than the original flight? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: is booking a sub-charter flight unreasonable if the cost is approximately three times higher than the original flight?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHY ABERCROMBIE and

FREDERICK ABERCROMBIE

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4235

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04235-CMR Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
# Support Documents for

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on

Premanufacture Notice (PMN)

P

- 03

- 7 6 7

EPA Docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2011

- 0577

# Index

A

- 001 St ructure Activity Team (SAT) Report for

PMN P

- 03

- 7 6 7

A

- 002 Initial Review Engineering Report for

PMN P

- 03

- 7 6 7

A

- 003 Initial Review Exposure Report for

PMN P

- 03

- 7 6 7

# A

- 001

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P

- 03

- 7 6 7

# A

- 002

Initial Review En gineering Report

for PMN P

- 03

- 7 6 7

# A

- 003

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P

- 03

- 7 6 7
World Wide Web Home Page for the South Platte NAWQAPostscript Version (1.7 Mb)A World Wide Web home page for the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, South Platte River Basin study is now online. The home page includes information about the basinwide investigation and providesviewing and downloading access to physical, chemical, and biological data collectedby the study team.  The World Wide Web (WWW) is part of a computer information network that provides public access to a wide variety of information. This information commonly is accessed and viewed by means of "home pages" on the WWW.
The South Platte River Basin study team has developed a home page on the Colorado District Web server that is available to any person with access to a Web browser. The home page contains information on significant findings from the study investigations, synopses of work activities, listing of and access to publicationsproduced by the study team, and personnelinformation. It also provides links to other USGS home pages, including the National USGS NAWQA home pages, in addition to other water-information-related links that may be of interest. 
The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the South Platte River Basin study home page is:
**http://webserver.cr.usgs.gov/nawqa/splt/splt_home.html
FIGURE 1: The South Platte NAWQA home page.
An innovative aspect of the home page is the availability of data to the public. Physical,chemical, and biological data for the South Platte River Basin study for water years 1992-95 are available over the WWW to any interested party through viewable tables and downloadable data sets. Included are data collectedfrom 136 surface-water sites on 24 streams, 39 sampling locations in 6 reservoirs, and 147 wells at 99 ground-water sites (a singlesampling location may have multiple wells) throughout the basin. The home page and data are updated as information and additionaldata become available.
Most of the data for the South Platte River Basin study were collected during the high intensity data collection phase of the project (March 1,1993, to September 31, 1995). The data consist of (1) physical informationsuch as water-temperature measurements, site descriptions,well-construction information, and suspended-sediment data; (2) chemical data from all surface- and ground-water sites and from fish tissue and bed sediment collected at surface-water sites; (3) biological data, such as habitat and fish community information; and (4) quality-control data associated with each sampling effort.
Goto Page 2South Platte River Basin Unit WebMasterURL for this Home Page is </nawqa/splt/splt_home.html>For comments or questions, Mail Us Comments.**