alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO3 Contributions to MT Class I AreasMontana(ug/m3)Montana(%)Canada(ug/m3)Canada(%)Idaho(ug/m3)Idaho (%) Washington(ug/m3)Washington(%)Oregon(ug/m3)Oregon(%)OutsideDomain(ug/m3)OutsideDomain(%)Total(ug/m3)Anaconda-PintlerWA 0.07 18 0.03 9 0.05 13 0.06 15 0.02 5 0.09 23 0.40Bob MarshallWA 0.18 31 0.07 11 0.04 7 0.06 9 0.02 3 0.15 25 0.60CabinetMountains WA 0.11 14 0.07 9 0.11 14 0.26 32 0.06 7 0.11 14 0.80Gates of theMountains WA 0.15 29 0.07 13 0.03 6 0.05 9 0.01 2 0.13 26 0.50Glacier NP0.26 23 0.24 22 0.10 9 0.15 13 0.06 6 0.25 23 1.10Medicine LakeWA 0.34 16 0.99 47 0.03 1 0.12 6 0.05 3 0.37 18 2.10MissionMountain WA 0.18 31 0.07 11 0.04 7 0.06 9 0.02 3 0.15 25 0.60Red Rock LakesWA 0.01 2 0.00 1 0.07 24 0.02 8 0.02 6 0.08 27 0.30Scapegoat WA0.18 31 0.07 11 0.04 7 0.06 9 0.02 3 0.15 25 0.60Selway-BitterrootWA 0.07 18 0.03 9 0.05 13 0.06 15 0.02 5 0.09 23 0.40U.L. Bend WA0.22 18 0.45 38 0.03 2 0.06 5 0.03 3 0.25 21 1.20Yellowstone NP0.01 2 0.00 1 0.07 24 0.02 8 0.02 6 0.08 27 0.30
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Alaska Science Center

##### U.S. Geological SurveyProfessional Paper 1732

# Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2005

### *Edited by* Peter J. Haeussler and John P. Galloway

### 2006

**Summary**

The collection of papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences.  This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public.  The reports presented in *Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska* cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of “online only” versions of *Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska*, reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.

Professional Paper 1732-A Houseknecht, David W. and Bird, Kenneth J., 2006, Oil and Gas Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province.

Professional Paper 1732-B Coombs, Michelle L., Neal, Christina A., Wessels, Rick L., and McGimsey, Robert G., 2006, Geothermal Disruption of Summit Glaciers at Mount Spurr Volcano, 2004–6: An Unusual Manifestation of Volcanic Unrest.

Professional Paper 1732-C Slack, John F., Shanks, Wayne C., III, Karl, Susan M., Gemery, Pamela A., Bittenbender, Peter E., and Ridley, W. Ian, 2007, Geochemical and Sulfur-Isotopic Signatures of Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits on Prince of Wales Island and Vicinity, Southeastern Alaska.

Professional Paper 1732-D Burns, W. Matthew, Hayba, Daniel O., Rowan, Elisabeth L., and Houseknecht, David W., 2007, Estimating the Amount of Eroded Section in a Partially Exhumed Basin from Geophysical Well Logs: An Example from the North Slope.

Professional Paper 1732-E Ayuso, Robert A., Karl, Susan M., Slack, John F., Haeussler, Peter J., Bittenbender, Peter E., Wandless, Gregory A., and Colvin, Anna S., 2007, Oceanic Pb-Isotopic Sources of Proterozoic and Paleozoic Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits on Prince of Wales Island and Vicinity, Southeastern Alaska.

(More to come)

For questions about the content of this report, contact Peter Haeussler

----

Download a current version of Adobe Reader for free

| Help   | PDF help   | Western reports main page | Western Professional Papers || Geologic   Division | Alaska Science Center   |

----

This report is available only on the Web

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey	URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1732/	Page Contact Information: Michael Diggles	Page Last Modified: October 9, 2007

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, David L. Gamsey, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Innotrac
     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.   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 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

4.   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
         control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 20, 2003           /s/ David L. Gamsey
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 David L. Gamsey
                                 Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                 and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

62) ll-K- (B) -50 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50 AM Sheet 62 of 325 
P.2 

A P. TO 

II-K-(Bl-50 

TABLE FOR RSD'S FOR INDUSTRIAL BOILERS. 

Letter from R.S. Elder, Radian to E. Medine, EEA. 

August 5, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-50
# C_2017195EN.01002402.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Gfi PSF v Commission

(Case T-200/16) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Development, maintenance, evolution and assistance services for websites - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Bid received already open - Article 111(4)(b) of the Financial Regulation))

(2017/C 195/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gfi PSF Sàrl (Leudelange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of 2 and 16 March 2016 of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of the public procurement procedure concerning, in particular, the development, maintenance, evolution and assistance services for that office’s websites (OJ 2015/S 251-459901) and, insofar as necessary, of the confirmatory decision of the POEU of 22 April 2016 and, secondly, action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gfi PSF Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gfi PSF Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

January 20, 1945

No. 49964.

#### Protests 59761-K, etc., of Robert E. Miller, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; JOSHUA SARNER; : NO. 02-4302

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE; :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D.; JOHN MATUSAVAGE; :

JOHN DOE PROCESS SERVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND :

AS AGENT FOR SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE; LEONARD SARNER, :

ESQUIRE :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2005, after conducting a Telephone Status Conference

with counsel in the above-captioned matter, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. As the deposition of Defendant John Matusavage has been completed, the discovery

period in this action is ended, effective today, February 3, 2005.

2. The information submitted to the Court forin camera inspection by counsel for the Sarner

Defendants, as it pertains to Collections, is to be disclosed to Plaintiff’s counsel as soon as

practicable. The remaining figures on the documents shall be redacted.

3. Defendants shall file a Motion for Summary Judgment with supporting briefs and

affidavits no later than March 7, 2005.

4. An appropriate response to the motion shall be filed no later than April 6, 2005.

5. A Telephone Status Conference shall take place on April 15, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. to

discuss the status of the case and the possibility of a resolution of the matter. The Court shall initiate

this conference call.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 68 Filed 02/04/2005 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of ProtoKinetix, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Ross L. Senior, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/ Ross L.
Senior


Ross L.
Senior


President
and Chief Executive Officer





April 30,
2008
DESCRIPTION OF CHAIRMAN’S AMENDMENT 

IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE 

TO H.R. 3971

THE “HIGHWAY REAUTHORIZATION TAX ACT OF 2004”

The Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute would make the following 

modifications to H.R. 3971, the “Highway Reauthorization Tax Act of 2004”:

1. Modification to reduced rates of tax on alcohol fuel mixtures replaced with an excise tax 

credit

The Chairman’s amendment provides that the excise tax credit and related payments for 

alcohol fuel mixtures is extended through December 31, 2010. 

2. Modification to exempt from certain excise taxes for mobile machinery

The Chairman’s amendment provides that to obtain a refund of fuel taxes, the mobile 

machinery vehicle must not travel more than 7,500 miles over public roads during the owner’s 

taxable year.

3. Modification to the taxation of aviation-grade kerosene

Under the bill, certain refueler trucks, tankers, and tank wagons are treated as part of a 

terminal located within an airport if certain requirements are met. The Chairman’s amendment 

clarifies that the requirement that no vehicle licensed for highway use be loaded with aviation 

fuel at the terminal in order for the refueling trucks to be treated as part of the terminal does not 

preclude the loading of highway vehicles in certain exigent circumstances as provided in 

regulations. 

The Chairman’s amendment also provides that refueling trucks, tankers, and tank wagons 

may be treated as part of a terminal located within an airport, regardless of whether the truck, 

tanker, or tank wagon delivers fuel for commercial or noncommercial aviation, if such truck, 

tanker or tank wagon otherwise satisfies all the other requirements of the proposal. For example,

if a refueling truck at an airport served by pipeline delivers fuel from the airport terminal rack 

directly into the wing of noncommercial aircraft, the point of taxation will be the delivery of the 

fuel into the wing of the aircraft, rather than when the fuel is dispensed into the refueling truck. 

Joint Committee on Taxation

March 17, 2004

JCX-23-04
No. 62485.

#### M. Farris & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 317383-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Nevada ClassicThoroughbreds, Inc.pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002regarding Annual Report on Form 10-K/Afor the year ended June 30, 2015**

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), theundersigned officer of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the "Company"), does hereby certify that, based upon his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30,2015 (the "Form 10-K/A") fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

> 
Dated: February 12, 2016

By: /s/ Brad Brimhall 

 

________________________________________

 
Brad BrimhallPrincipal Executive OfficerChief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30884 Conference Calendar

ALCY JOSEPH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LUIS MUNGZA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-452-J

- - - - - - - - - - February 24, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alcy Joseph, Jr., #207031, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. On January 9, 1997, Chief Judge Politz ordered Joseph to file an affidavit for leave to proceed IFP on appeal pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The order held Joseph’s appeal in abeyance for 30 days pending payment of the $105 filing fee or submittal of the required documents pursuant to the PLRA. Joseph timelyNo. 96-30884 - 2 - responded; however, the financial documentation submitted by Joseph does not comply with the requirements imposed by the PLRA because he did not submit a certified statement of his prison trust account. Accordingly, Joseph’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Should Joseph wish to reinstate his appeal, he is instructed to pay the $105 filing fee to the clerk of the district court within 30 days.
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2017104EN.01002402.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky

(Case C-593/16)

(2017/C 104/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Alexander Holiczky

Defendant:

By order of 7 February 2017, this case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.

---
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 101 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 101 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2016428EN.01000202.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB v DB Station & Service AG

(Case C-344/16)

(2016/C 428/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB

Applicant:

Defendant: DB Station & Service AG

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a provision of national law under which the user of a railway infrastructure against whom an action has been brought by the infrastructure manager before a civil court for payment of a user charge, or who seeks before that court to secure repayment of user charges already paid, may argue that the charge set by the infrastructure manager is not fair and reasonable compatible with the provisions of the directive (1) concerning the independence of the management of the infrastructure undertaking (Article 4(1), (4) and (5)), the principles governing the fixing of charges (Articles 7 to 12) and the tasks of the regulatory body (Article 30)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a provision of national law under which the user of a railway infrastructure against whom an action has been brought by the infrastructure manager before a civil court for payment of a user charge, or who seeks before that court to secure repayment of user charges already paid, may argue that the charge set by the infrastructure manager is not fair and reasonable compatible with the provisions of the directive (1) concerning the independence of the management of the infrastructure undertaking (Article 4(1), (4) and (5)), the principles governing the fixing of charges (Articles 7 to 12) and the tasks of the regulatory body (Article 30)?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is a provision of national law compatible with the abovementioned provisions of the directive where, under that provision of national law, the court is entitled and obliged, should it conclude that the charge set is not fair, to determine by judicial decision what charge will instead be payable? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is a provision of national law compatible with the abovementioned provisions of the directive where, under that provision of national law, the court is entitled and obliged, should it conclude that the charge set is not fair, to determine by judicial decision what charge will instead be payable?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).

1

---
No. 76-5521.

No. 76-5543.

#### Rose *v.*United States; and Berry *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00084

- CV

Mamoon N. Alahmad

v.

Ismail “Sam” Abukhdair §

§

§

§ From the 342nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (342

- 226602

- 07 )

January 30, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial cou rt is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Mamoon N. Alahmad shall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Sue Walker

_______________ Justice Sue Walker
# C_2016343EN.01003501.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-387/16)

(2016/C 343/48)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Appellant:

Other parties: Nidera B.V., Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Other parties:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the interest that is normally payable under national law on a VAT overpayment (excess) which was not refunded (set off) in due time, which reduction takes into account circumstances other than those resulting from the actions of the taxable person himself, such as the relationship between the interest and the amount of the overpayment not refunded in due time, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---