alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
You may think that every drop of rain that falls from the sky, or

each glass of water that you drink is brand new, but in fact it has

always been here and is a constant part of The Water Cycle!

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Stefanie Neno, Jim Morgan, Gabriele Zanolli, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Howard Perlman, Gerard Gonthier, U.S. Geological Survey

General Information Product 146

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle-kids.html

The heat of the sun 

provides energy to make 

the water cycle work.

The sun evaporates

water from the oceans

into water vapor. 

The water vapor

condenses into clouds.

Air currents move clouds

all around the Earth.

Water drops form in

clouds, and the drops

then fall to Earth as 

precipitation (rain and 

snow).

In cold climates,

precipitation builds up

as snow, ice, and

glaciers.

Snow can melt and

become runoff, which

flows into rivers, the

oceans, and into the

ground.

Some ice evaporates

directly into the air,

skipping the melting

phase (sublimation).

Volcanoes emit steam,

which forms clouds.

This invisible vapor rises

into the atmosphere,

where the air is colder.

Plants take up

groundwater and

evapotranspire, or

evaporate, it from

their leaves.

Some groundwater seeps

into rivers and lakes, and

can flow to the surface

as springs.

Groundwater close to the

land surface is taken up

by plants.

Some groundwater goes

very deep into the ground

and stays there for a

long time.

Groundwater flows into

the oceans, keeping the

water cycle going.

Water from

lakes and rivers can also

seep into the ground.

Water moves underground

because of gravity and

pressure.

Rainfall on land flows

downhill as runoff,

providing water to lakes,

rivers, and the oceans.

Some rain soaks into the

ground, as infiltration,

and if deep enough,

recharges groundwater.

RUNOFF

LAKES

SEEPAGE

INFILTRATION

SPRING

PLANT

UPTAKE RECHARGE

GROUNDWATER STORAGE

GROUNDWATER FLOW

THE OCEANS

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

RIVERS

SNOWMELT

RUNOFF

FOG AND DEW

PRECIPITATION

SUBLIMATION

ICE AND

SNOW

STREAMFLOW

The

Water

Cycle

VOLCANIC

STEAM

EVAPORATION

CONDENSATION THE ATMOSPHERE

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
No. 54099.

#### A. Schulman, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 138838-K and 139683-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that: the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three monthsended September 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Dated: November 10,  2008 | /s/ Benjamin Daitch                                |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Benjamin Daitch                                    |
|                           | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                           | (Principal Financial  Officer)                     |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
#### In the Matter of Samantha ZZ., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Tammy A., Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 253]

—Mikoll, J. P.

AppeaT from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Work, J.), entered August 31, 1994, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate Samantha ZZ. a permanently neglected child, and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

In November 1992, a petition was filed against respondent, alleging that her child, Samantha ZZ. (born in 1991), was permanently neglected. A finding of permanent neglect was made and after a dispositional hearing, Family Court found that petitioner exerted diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship between Samantha and respondent and that, despite those efforts, respondent failed to plain for the return of the child to her care for a period of more than one year.* The court rejected respondent’s defense, raised for the first time at the dispositional hearing, that she was under the control of Matthew ZZ. (hereinafter the father) and abused by him and should be exonerated for the extent of Samantha’s prolonged foster care.

Family Court found that though there were instances of abuse of respondent by the father, she did not lack a will of her own and rejected all assistance offered to her to assist in extricating herself from the abusive situation. The court found that respondent was likely to return to the father should he return to the area and this created an untenable living situation for the child.

*866Based on respondent’s excessive use of alcohol and drugs, her meager visitation record, her failure to utilize the various programs offered to her by petitioner for rehabilitation and counseling, her failure to part with the father and the violence of the relationship, it was in Samantha’s best interest to terminate the parental rights of respondent and the father and to free the child for adoption.

We conclude that Family Court’s finding that petitioner used diligent efforts to strengthen respondent’s relationship with the child is supported in the record by clear and convincing evidence *(see, Matter of C. Children,*170 AD2d 254). There is also clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to plan for the child’s return although physically and financially able to do so. Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a) creates the presumption that a parent is physically and financially able to plan for the return of the child. The record discloses that her caseworker helped respondent apply for public assistance and Medicaid benefits which respondent acknowledged she was receiving. Aside from her alcoholism, respondent failed to demonstrate that her inability to care for her child was caused by other than her own acts.

Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

*

 A separate petition was filed against Matthew ZZ., who failed to appear at the dispositional hearing.
No. 56467.

protest 156273-K (New York).

#### Hanover Cordage Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of 15 cases of machines known as sliver roll formers and sliver roll attachments, which machines are used to perform one of the intermediate manufacturing ■processes in the conversion of vegetable fibers into yarns, and that the resultant product of the operation is a sliver. On the record presented, it was held that the exception of winding machinery from apparatus for manufacturing or processing vegetable fibers did not apply to the merchandise herein. Upon the agreed statement of facts, it was held that the merchandise consists of textile machinery for manufacturing or processing vegetable fibers, as provided in paragraph 372, as modified, *supra,*and is dutiable at 10 percent, as claimed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CORPORATE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16  GLOBAL INCORPORATED
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      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 quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based
on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly 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
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesaris

Mark J. DeCesaris
acting Chief Financial Officer
No. 64930.

#### Brown Boveri Corp. and Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc., *v.*United States,

protest 59/14062 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of voltage regulators similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Brown Boveri Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 168, C.D. 1978), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Devorius Jones v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00487-CR

Trial court case number: 1454417

Trial court: 263rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant was represented by appointed counsel in the trial court, but counsel withdrew 

when appellant filed his notice of appeal. No counsel was appointed on appeal and the record 

does not show that the trial court made a determination of indigence for the purpose of 

appointing counsel or allowing appellant to have the record filed at no cost to him.

The reporter’s record was due August 1, 2016. The court reporter advised us that 

appellant had not paid or made payment arrangements for filing the reporter’s record. 

Accordingly, we issued an order, abating the appeal and directing the trial court to hold a 

hearing to determine whether appellant was indigent and entitled to appointed counsel and a 

record at no cost. The supplemental clerk’s record was filed on January 11, 2017. The trial court 

found appellant was indigent and appointed Adam Brown as appellant’s counsel. 

We lift the abatement and reinstate the appeal. The reporter’s record shall be filed on or 

before February 21, 2017.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually 

Date: January 19, 2017
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4959 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4959

 To prohibit Federal agencies from implementing environmental justice 
         standards when issuing rules, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2024

    Ms. Lummis (for herself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. 
Lankford, and Mr. Rounds) introduced the following bill; which was read 
     twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Federal agencies from implementing environmental justice 
         standards when issuing rules, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Environmental Gamesmanship 
Act'' or the ``REG Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENCY RULE MAKING.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``agency'' and 
``rule'' have the meanings given those terms in section 551 of title 5, 
United States Code.
    (b) Prohibition.--In issuing a rule, or otherwise administering a 
duly enacted law of the United States, an agency may not consider 
environmental justice unless the agency is required to do so by law.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

    Effective beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
following Executive orders shall have no force or effect:
            (1) Executive Order 12898 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; relating to 
        Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority 
        populations and low-income populations).
            (2) Executive Order 14096 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; relating to 
        revitalizing our Nation's commitment to environmental justice 
        for all).
            (3) Executive Order 14008 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; relating to 
        tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad).
                                 <all>
```
Before the First Division,

July 8, 1943

No. 48516.

#### Protests 28021-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the bicycle horns are composed in chief value of base metal, not plated, and that they are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 47964. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
Patrick Kelly <kellyp@api.org>

10/25/2013 06:01 PM To Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135: Supplemental

Comments of the American Petroleum Institute

2 attachments

Tier 3 Supplimental Comment.pd f Supplimental Comment.pd HDS_092013_Future US Trends in Adoption of LD Autom Technologies.pd f HDS_092013_Future Adoption Technologies.pd

To whom it may concern:

The American Petroleum Institute is submitting the attached supplemental comments to the subject

Docket for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule on Control of Air Pollution from

Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards. Please note these are in addition to

the supplemental comments filed yesterday, 10/24/13.

Sincerely,

Patrick Kelly

API
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4634 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, 

as the ‘‘Representative Maxine Bell Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4634 ES

1 SECTION 1. REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE BELL POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 154 First Avenue East in Je4 rome, Idaho, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Rep5 resentative Maxine Bell Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Representative Maxine 

10 Bell Post Office’’. 

Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 16), 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4634 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBell Post Office’’. Jerome, Idaho, as the ‘‘Representative Maxine al Service located at 154 First Avenue East in
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

s0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139887 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139887 

 COA: 292960 

Genesee CC: 97-001414-FC 

THOMAS EDWARD SADLER II, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Edgewood Estates Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Appellant, v Mark IV Construction Co., Inc., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 900]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, *985complaint reinstated, motion granted in part and third, fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth affirmative defenses struck. Memorandum: Defendant candidly concedes that the Offering Plan requires it to pay the difference between plaintiff Association’s actual yearly expenses and the charges levied on Association members who have closed on their lots *(see, Brookview Homeowners’ Assn. v Mark IV Constr. Co.,*178 AD2d 967). Supreme Court, therefore, should not have granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant contends, however, that its affirmative defenses raise questions of fact that preclude granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. We reject that contention to the extent that it is based on the premise that defendant is not required to pay for deficits arising from plaintiff’s failure to budget or to budget adequately for legitimate expenses. The Offering Plan authorizes plaintiff to pay for maintenance expenses and defendant may not challenge those legitimate expenditures.

We likewise reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s payment of $2,502.20 for attorney’s fees was not an authorized expenditure. Because those legal fees arose from a settlement, rather than the successful prosecution of a suit between plaintiff and an individual homeowner, they are plaintiff’s obligation rather than the obligation of the homeowner. We agree with defendant, however, that its sixth and seventh affirmative defenses preclude summary judgment. In its sixth affirmative defense, defendant asserts that plaintiff’s payment of $1,257 for the maintenance of the interior of a homeowner’s unit was not an authorized expenditure. Plaintiff responds that the expenditure was for exterior repairs. The Offering Plan does not authorize plaintiff to maintain or repair structures that it does not own. A question of fact exists, therefore, whether plaintiff’s payment of $1,257 was for an authorized expense.

In its seventh affirmative defense, defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to deduct from the 1991 budget deficit a special assessment it imposed on its members. Plaintiff responds that the special assessment should not reduce defendant’s liability. Section 5.0 of the Offering Plan provides in part that defendant "shall be obligated for the differences between the actual Association expenses including reserves applicable to completed improvements, and the Association charges levied on owners who have closed title to their Lots”. Because a question of fact exists whether the special assessment should have been deducted from the deficit, summary judgment is precluded. *986Consequently, we grant in part plaintiffs motion by striking defendant’s third, fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth affirmative defenses. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. —Summary Judgment.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
# C_2007045EN.01000101.xml

| 28.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 45/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | — |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 496/06 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Region | Vlaanderen/Flandre |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Cultuurinvest |
| Legal basis | Beslissing Vlaamse Regering van 31 maart 2006 VR/PV/2006/11, punt 47 — Décision du Gouvernement Flamand du 31 mars 2006 VR/PV/2006/11, point 47 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Risk capital |
| Form of aid | Provision of risk capital |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 15 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration (period) | Until 31.12.2012 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Vlaamse Regering |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

—

Reference number of the aid

N 496/06

Member State

Belgium

Region

Vlaanderen/Flandre

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Cultuurinvest

Legal basis

Beslissing Vlaamse Regering van 31 maart 2006 VR/PV/2006/11, punt 47 — Décision du Gouvernement Flamand du 31 mars 2006 VR/PV/2006/11, point 47

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Risk capital

Form of aid

Provision of risk capital

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 15 million

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2012

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Vlaamse Regering

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---