alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Water resources of Clark, Cleveland, and Dallas Counties, Arkansas

By: Raymond O. PlebuchMarion S. Hines

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1879A

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### Quality of surface waters of the United States, 1963, Parts 1 and 2, North Atlantic slope basins and south Atlantic slope and eastern Gulf of Mexico basins

By: S. K. Love

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1947

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Case Mo. 9,242.

#### MASON v. LAWRASON et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 190.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1804.

Pleading at Law — Action' by Administrator-Oyer of Letters — Profert—Court Records — Authentication.

1. Although the plaintiffs name themselves administrators. yet if they have not made profert of their letters of administration they are not bound to give oyer of them.

2. The act of congress respecting the authentication of the records of state courts does not apply to recoids of the courts of the United States.

[Cited in Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 424.]

Action on a contract made with the administrators and not with the intestate, but the plaintiffs named themselves administrators, and did not make a profert of their letters of administration. A rule had been laid upon the defendants [Lawrason & Smoot] to plead. They prayed oyer of the letters of administration, and cited Theobald v. Long, Cartli. 453, and Adams v. Savage, 6 Mod. 134. The plaintiffs refused to give oyer.

Mr. Taylor, for plaintiffs.

Mr. Swann, for defendant.

THE COURT

decided that they were not bound to give oyer, because there was no pro-fert; because oyer is not demandable after the first term; and because the plaintiffs did not sue in the right of their intestate, but in their own right. So that the letters of administration constituted no part of their title.

A certificate of discharge of McPherson, as *1047a bankrupt, was offered in evidence, with a seal, said by counsel to be the seal of the United States district court in Richmond, but not stated by the clerk to be such, but barely signed by him.

[See 3 Cranch (7 U.. S.) 492.]

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Circuit Judge, absent,)

permitted verbal evidence to be given that this was the seal, and also that the clerk of that court, W. Marshall, had usually attested records in that manner, and did not insist on its being authenticated agreeably to the requisites of the act of congress, as it was not the act of a state court, but one of the United States. (Judge Fitzhugh’s Notes.)
January 8, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MIGUEL ANGEL PARRA MORALES, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00685-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### {In Archive} Title V application for MCU Main Flare Shaheerah Kelly to: Wilson Laughter 01/26/2007 09:34 AM
From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US To: Wilson Laughter <wilsonlaughter@navajo.org>, Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive. Wilson, attached is a scanned copy of the Title V application for the Main Flare at the MCU facility. I said I would fax you a copy but I was able to have the document scanned. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly U S EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00121-CR

Charles Alex Haywood, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2044218, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Charles Alex Haywood seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for possession

of cocaine. The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Haywood has no right of

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeal is dismissed. See id. rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 31, 2005

Do Not Publish
*

Honorable Henry A. Politz, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

FLORIDA RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., Florida Right To Life Political Action Committee, PlaintiffsAppellees,

v.

Lawson LAMAR, in his official capacity as Florida State Attorney, Valerie Crotty, in her official capacity

as a member of the Florida Elections Commission, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 00-10245.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 17, 2001.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 98-00770-CIV-ORL19A); Patricia C. Fawsett, Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and POLITZ*

, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Katherine Harris, Robert Butterworth, and various Florida state officials, acting in their official

capacities, appeal from an order enjoining the enforcement of Florida Statutes Section 106.011(1), which

governs the financing of electoral campaigns.

Appellants concede that the statute is overbroad but suggest that the district court should have

interpreted the statute in a way that would pass constitutional muster. Upon review we find no error in the

district court's enjoining the enforcement of Florida Statutes Section 106.011(1) because it is

unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 4.2


     Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on September
27, 1999 amending the Plan to limit the number of shares which may be issued
under the Plan to a single director and to limit the total number of shares
which may be issued under the Plan:

               RESOLVED that the Company plan with regard to ownership of
          Company stock by members of the Board of Directors adopted at a
          meeting of the Board on January 19, 1999 is hereby amended to provide
          that (i) no single officer or director may acquire under the plan more
          than one percent (1%) of the shares of the Company's Common Stock
          outstanding on the date of adoption of that policy; and (ii) together
          with all other plans of the Company (other than plans for which
          shareholder approval is not required under subsections (1) and (3) of
          Section 312.03 of the Listed Company Manual of the New York Stock
          Exchange) the plan shall not permit the issuance of more than five
          percent (5%) of the Company's Common Stock outstanding on the date the
          policy was adopted.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# AGENCY:

Department of Education. 

# ACTION:

Correction Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On March 28, 2007, the Department of Education published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         (Page 14542, Column 1) for the information collection, “Study of the Program for Infant Toddler Care”. This notice hereby corrects the number of responses from 2,667 to 3,722.                     

The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Dated: April 27, 2007. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. E7-8354 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,024
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,184
<PP&E>                                          61,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 170,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           274
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   170,203
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,716
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,732
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,427
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        


</TABLE>
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6106.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, October 4, 1938.

Certified October 6, 1938.

Entered at Boston, Mass., November 1, 1938.

Entry No. 4776.

(Decided February 26, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of -counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Austei\*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoice with “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by *352reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Echardt Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper paft of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per*se unit invoice prices, plus 3J4 per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeato reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoice by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3 *%*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is herebj^ dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UNITY HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         381,515
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,840,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    210,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      3,247,038
<ALLOWANCE>                                     40,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,098,479
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,559,198
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             54,867
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        83,871
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,400,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,098,479
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,917
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               199,532
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               213,449
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,976
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,207
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          162,242
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   40,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                563,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (418,740)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (418,740)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (137,940)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (556,680)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.78)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.88
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               40,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            40,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 44227.

#### Protests 899966-G (B), etc., of Philip Lien (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
Case No. 14,660.

#### UNITED STATES v. BROWN.

[4 Cranch. C. C. 508.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

March Term, 1835.

Cuimixal Law — Evidence — Admissions — Examination bt Magistrate.’"•

What was said in the presence of the prisoner, before the examining magistrate, and to which he made no reply, cannot be given in evidence against him.

[Cited in State v. Young (Mo. Sup.) 12 S.-W. 881.]

Mr. Key, Dist Atty.,

offered to give in evidence against the prisoner [Nehemiah Brown], who was indicted for larceny, what had been said before the examining justice in the presence and hearing of the prisoner, to which he had made no reply.

W. L. Brent, for defendant,

objected, and cited People v. Johnson, 2 Wheeler, Cr. Cas. 377.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

said that the United States could not give in evidence what was said while the prisoner was under 'examination before the justice, if the prisoner made no reply; for he is not bound to admit or deny what is said by the witnesses.

Mr. Key said he only meant to give evidence of what was said and replied to by the prisoner; and the examination was so confined.