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

BEAUFORT SEA
BARROW CANYON

410000.

8090000m.N,

8090000m..Y

Bathymetry compiled by the National Ocean Service (NOS) from Bathy-
metric Data other than NOS hydrographic surveys. This is a facsimile
reproduction of the bathymetric manuscript and does not necessarily
represent the final publication. This information is not intended for navi-
gational purposes.
Bathymetric Contour Intervals: 10 meters to 200 meter depth, thence 50
meters to maximum depth.
Datum: Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).
Universal Transverse- Mercator Grid. Zone 5; 10,000 meter ticks, (--) are
shown inside the neatline.
Protraction Diagram data shown in a subdued (screened) black was com-
piled by the Minerals Management Service (MMS}.
THIS MAP IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT for Federal leasing purposes; for
such purposes use the MMS Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction
Diagrams.

Heavy lines(s) indicate limits of these protraction diagrams.

EVALUATION OF BATHYMETRIC

Bathymetry compiled by the National Ocean Service from
Random Tracklinies and Bathymetric Surveys dated 1944 to 1974.
The Bathymetric Data ranges in scale from 1:500,000 to
1:1,000,000 with @ minimum line spacing of 3.0’and a maximum.
line spacing of 15.0 nautical miles.

Data corrected for sound velocity according to Echo-Sounding
“Correction Tables, 1980.

OUTER CONTINENTAL, SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND. ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

1986

*Produced at Washington, D.C.
, for °

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
Scale 1:250,000
10

BATHYMETRIC DATA INDEX

BARROW CANYON

NOS NS 5-7 (OCS)

, Bathymetric data from sources other than
NOS hydrographic surveys.

728

156°

20 Statute Miles

- ° 5 15
5 ° 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kilometers
or =

£ 5 10 15 Nautical Miles
= ]

E

-:
73°
INDEX TO
ADJOINING SHEETS
soe 150°,
| BEAUFORT SEA :
| agnon | BSR
[. a
72° "
we,
159°
# Official Journal C 205/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 205 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6217 June 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 205

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6217 June 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 205/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fifth supplement to the 37th complete edition | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 205/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fifth supplement to the 37th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 568 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 280 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 280

Supporting ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after 
                            school programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2005

 Mr. Dodd (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burns, 
  Mr. Burr, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Ms. 
Collins, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, 
  Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. 
 Murray, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reid, Mr. Salazar, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
 Specter, and Ms. Stabenow) submitted the following resolution; which 
                      was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after 
                            school programs.

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, challenging, engaging, 
        and fun learning experiences to help children and youth develop their 
        social, emotional, physical, cultural, and academic skills;
Whereas high quality after school programs support working families by ensuring 
        that the children in such families are safe and productive after the 
        regular school day ends;
Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger communities by 
        involving the Nation's students, parents, business leaders, and adult 
        volunteers in the lives of the Nation's youth, thereby promoting 
        positive relationships among children, youth, families, and adults;
Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, schools, and diverse 
        community partners in advancing the well-being of the Nation's children;
Whereas ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after school 
        programs held on October 20, 2005, promotes the critical importance of 
        high quality after school programs in the lives of children, their 
        families, and their communities;
Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States have parents who work 
        outside the home and 14,300,000 children in the United States have no 
        place to go after school; and
Whereas many after school programs across the United States are struggling to 
        keep their doors open and their lights on: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and ideals of ``Lights 
On Afterschool!'' a national celebration of after school programs.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 627 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 627

    Commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 9, 2005, 
                  terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2006

    Mr. Lugar (for himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Reid) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 9, 2005, 
                  terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan.

Whereas on November 9, 2005, a series of terrorist bombs exploded at the 
        Radisson, Hyatt, and Days Inn hotels in Amman, Jordan, resulting in the 
        deaths of scores of civilians and the injuries of hundreds of others;
Whereas Jordan has been targeted in several terrorist attacks over the past few 
        years and likely remains a target for Islamic extremists;
Whereas Jordan provided unequivocal support to the United States after the 
        September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;
Whereas Jordan has arrested suspected terrorists with possible ties to Osama bin 
        Laden's Al Qaeda organization and has provided other critical support to 
        the global war on terrorism; and
Whereas Jordan remains a firm ally of the United States in the global war 
        against terrorism and in helping to achieve a lasting peace in the 
        Middle East: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) notes with sorrow the one-year anniversary of the 
        November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan;
            (2) condemns in the strongest possible terms the November 
        9, 2005, terrorist attacks;
            (3) expresses its ongoing condolences to the families and 
        friends of those individuals who were killed in the attacks and 
        its sympathies to those individuals who were injured;
            (4) reiterates its support of the Jordanian people and 
        their government;
            (5) values the strong and lasting friendship between Jordan 
        and the United States and the continuing cooperation of the two 
        nations in political, economic, and humanitarian endeavors; and
            (6) expresses its readiness to support and assist the 
        Jordanian authorities in their efforts to pursue, disrupt, 
        undermine, and dismantle the networks that plan and carry out 
        such terrorist attacks as the November 9, 2005, terrorist 
        attacks in Amman, Jordan.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7568]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR07-12-000]


Enterprise Texas Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Petition for Rate 
Approval

April 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 9, 2007, Enterprise Texas Pipeline L.P. 
(Enterprise Texas) filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA section 
311 transportation rates equal to 44.62 cents per MMBtu, pursuant to 
section 284.123(b)(2)(i) of the Commission's regulations, with a 
proposed effective date of May 1, 2007. Enterprise Texas also submitted 
changes to its Operating Statement.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8aeadbaaba7868481868dbb9d9898879a9ca88e8d9a8bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ccac9decfc3e2e0e5e2e9dff9fcfce3fef8cceae9feefa2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time April 20, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7568 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04386

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04386\04386_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04386\04386_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04386\04386_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04386\04386_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04386\Certification Statement Plant ID 04386.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04386\Supplemental Documentation\04386_EPA EG ICR Diagrams Thomas Fitzhugh.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04386\Supplemental Documentation\04386_EPA EG ICR Diagrams Thomas Fitzhugh.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04386\Supplemental Documentation\04386_EPA EG ICR Maps Fitzhugh.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04386\Supplemental Documentation\04386_EPA EG ICR Maps Fitzhugh_1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04386\Supplemental Documentation\04386_RE Map and Water Balance.rtf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04386\04386_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04386\04386_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Estimated Relrnlatied Activities

All dangerous waste management facilities are currently subject to federal corrective action

requirements. These requirements are implemented by EPA Region 10. Ecology has

estimated the regulated universe subject to corrective action as follows:

According to information in the RCRA Information System (RCRIS), there are 81

dangerous waste management facilities in Washington. Of those, 53 are dangerous waste

storage and/or treatment facilities and 28 are dangerous waste land disposal facilities. Only,

state-only dangerous waste management facilities will become subject to corrective action

as a result of Ecology's corrective action authorization, Ecology estimates there are less than

ten state-only! dangerous waste management facilities in Washington.

It is possible that some RCRA generators may become subject to corrective action

requirements through non-compliance with the generator regulations. Ecology tracks 4440

RCRA generators in RCRIS, 1049 large quantity generators (generating over 1000 kg of

dangerous waste per month or per batch) and 3391 medium quantity generators (generating

100to 1000kg of dangerous waste per month or per batch). Ecology tracks 1492 generators

as "new-notifiers", meaning they filed their first notification of dangerous waste activity

within the past 12 months.

According to data submitted by dangerous waste generators and .management facilities in

the 1991 annual reports, 15,972,502 pounds of dangerous waste were generated in

Washington in 1991. Of the 15,972,502pounds reported, 15,530,101 was reported generated

by state and federal permit-by-rule facilities. Only 428,582 pounds of dangerous waste were

reported as from recurrent, non-permit-by-rule sources. In 1990, generators reported

8,558,663 pounds of dangerous waste; 8,268,115 from state and federal permit-by-rule

facilities and 247,557 from recurrent, non-permit-by-rule sources.

1 State-onlyTSDF count does not include aluminum processing facilities which generate

aluminum potliner federally regulated as hazardous waste number K088. These facilities

are technicallystate-only TSDFs, since Washington has not yet been authorized for the K088

listing and the state criteria catch aluminum potliner as state-only dangerous waste. There

are five aluminum processing facilities currently regulated as state-only TSDFs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000097452
<NAME> TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             229
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,289
<PP&E>                                       1,041,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,257,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          130,867
<BONDS>                                        251,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     632,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,257,208
<SALES>                                          8,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,160
<CGS>                                            8,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,949
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,682
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,370
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,312
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,312
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### James Perry MOUNT v. STATE of Arkansas

CA CR 86-139

720 S.W.2d 721

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Opinion delivered December 10, 1986

Per Curiam.

Appellant’s motion to set bond is denied.

Melvin Mayfield, Judge,

concurring. I concur in the court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to set bond in the above matter.

Under Rules of Criminal Procedure 36.5 — 36.7, persons convicted of crimes other than capital offenses may be admitted to bail by the trial court under the conditions provided by those rules.

The motion in this case does not tell us whether the appellant has applied to the trial court for the setting of a bail bond under the provisions of the above rules. Undoubtedly, this matter should first be presented to the trial court. Therefore, I agree that the present motion should be denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          522272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2280013
<ALLOWANCES>                                     45665
<INVENTORY>                                     694906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3818580
<PP&E>                                         6006588
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1166191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                22737184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1629051
<BONDS>                                        1053497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           110499
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      53626506
<OTHER-SE>                                  (34546922)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  22734184
<SALES>                                        4815952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5313835
<CGS>                                          2522618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6871747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 21758
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              154468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1734138)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1734138)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1734138)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
No. 44214.

#### Protest 891712-G of Carl Rudder, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was sustained accordingly.
#### DuBois, Appellant, *v.*DuBois.

*Divorce*— Adultery—Evidence—Sufficiency.

A decree of divorce on the ground of adultery is properly refused, where the evidence in support of it is largely that of the libellant and one interested witness, whose stories did not agree in material particulars, and did not convince the court of their veracity.

Argued November 14,1924.

Appeal, No. 232, Oct. T., 1924, by libellant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co. Sept. T., 1922, No. 1447, in divorce, in the case of John Pierre DuBois v. Jennie Brown Shuster DuBois.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Libel in divorce. Before McDevitt, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The case was referred to Grover C. Ladner, Esq., as master, who recommended that a divorce be granted.

On exceptions to the master’s report the court sustained the exceptions and dismissed the libel. Libellant appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*David Newman,*and with him *Ben-Zion D. Oliensis,*for appellant.

*William A. Carr,*and with him *Sidney L. Krauss*anil *George T. Steeley,*for appellee.

*168March 13, 1925:

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This was an action of divorce from the bond of matrimony brought by a husband against his wife on the ground of adultery. The master’s report recommended that the divorce be granted. On exceptions to the report the court below found that the weight of the evidence was against the libellant, and accordingly sustained the exceptions, disapproved the recommendation and dismissed the libel. Our view of the testimony sustains the action of the court.

No good purpose would be served by discussing the evidence at length. A decree of divorce would have to rest, ultimately, on the testimony of the libellant and a woman companion who, from the street, are alleged to have witnessed acts occurring in the second-story front room of respondent’s home which justified a divorce. Without this testimony the evidence was insufficient to sustain a decree. It was unfortunate that the libellant should have chosen as his associate observer in this matter the woman responsible, according to the respondent, for breaking up the home of these parties and the severance of their marital relations. A less interested person would have been a more convincing witness. Moreover, their stories did not agree in material particulars and this cast discredit on the rest of their evidence. We do not believe it. The libellant’s case was not helped, either, in this court, by his undenied threats to name as co-respondent in the action a man whom he did not know and against whom he had not a shred of incriminating evidence, unless he consented to give information against his wife. The case against the respondent was not, in our opinion, sufficient to justify a divorce on the ground alleged in the libel.

The assignments of error are overruled and the decree of the court below is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.
Before the Third Division,

April 13, 1950

No. 54243.

#### Austin Nichols & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150706-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.