alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### A preliminary report on the electrical resistivity survey at Medicine Lake, Montana

By: George J. Edwards

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir97

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (1083 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (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.
March 24, 1943

No. 48153.

#### Protest 44027-K of C. J. Tower & Sons.

Government’s application for rehearing denied.
33680.

#### GIDDINGS et al. v. STARKS et al.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

Starks brought an action under Code Ann. § 37-1411 et seq. to remove a cloud on his title.

Starks purchased a 25-acre tract of land which was part of a 59-acre tract formerly owned by Felix Giddings. In 1926 Felix Giddings deeded the land to his two sons, S. J. and James P. Giddings. No deed of record appears showing any conveyance from either S. J. or James P. Giddings, who died intestate, respectively, in 1948 and 1931. In 1929 Maude Parks, a sister of S. J. and James P. Giddings, began living on the land with the permission of James P. Giddings. In 1932 the land was levied on for taxes, at which time Maude Parks and her husband Arthur paid the arrearage. They continued to pay the taxes each year thereafter. Maude Parks borrowed money for improvements and gave security deeds on the land in 1942 and in 1948. In 1948 Maude Parks conveyed the land by warranty deed to James H. Willis, and in 1952 Willis reconveyed by warranty deed to Maude Parks. In 1962 the highway department condemned 3.687 acres of this tract as lands of Maude Parks. In 1976 Maude Parks conveyed all but 3.7 acres of the tract to Roy Blankenship, who divided the land into two tracts and conveyed 25 acres to Starks in 1976 and the remainder to C. D. Cofield.

*458Argued June 19, 1978

Decided October 17, 1978

Rehearing denied October 31, 1978.

*E. Lynn Mitchell, LeRoy Langston,*for appellants.

*Elkins, Flournoy & Gemmette, T. M. Flournoy, Jr.,*for appellees.

The Giddings claimants assert title as heirs of S. J. and James P. Giddings.

The Giddings claimants contend that the trial court erred by failing to grant their motion for directed verdict and by granting Starks’ motion for directed verdict. The trial court ruled correctly on the motions for directed verdict if the evidence, construed most favorably to the Giddings claimants, *demanded*a verdict for Starks and failed to disclose *any*material issue for jury resolution. *North Ga. Production Credit Assn. v. Vandergrift,*239 Ga. 755, 761 (238 SE2d 869) (1977).

The evidence established without contradiction that the Giddings claimants are not the legitimate descendants of either S. J. Giddings or James P. Giddings, and hence, that they had no interest in the property to interpose against the Starkses. The Giddings claimants failed to prove facts necessary to sustain their right of inheritance. Code Ann. § 113-904; *Williams v. Cave,*53 Ga. App. 582 (186 SE 694) (1936).

The trial court did not err in sustaining the motion for directed verdict filed by Starks or in overruling the motion for directed verdict filed by the Giddings claimants. *North Ga. Production Credit Assn. v. Vandergrift,*supra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Criminal law deskbook.**
 
Summer  2010
Volumes:  0102
Winter  2011-12
Volumes:  010203
August  2012
Volumes:  01020304
March 2017
 
July 2018
 
July 2019
 
 
 
SuDoc Number:D 108.10/5:
Item Number:0348-C-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001081967
 
October 9, 2018
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-423-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, 101st Revised Sheet No. 9, to 
become effective May 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring 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 in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
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 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8930 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
From: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US 

To: eschrepf@npca.org 

Cc: Jeanhee Hong/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 04/14/2011 04:05 PM 

Subject: Fw: Request for extension of comment period in EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0131 

Hello Ms. Schrepf, 

 

Per my earlier message, I am forwarding Ms. Hong's email and our attached response to your April 5 

request to extend the comment period on our proposed action regarding the California Regional Haze 

Plan and the 2007 Transport SIP. 

 

Sincerely, 

Jerry Wamsley 

-----Forwarded by Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US on 04/14/2011 03:52PM ----- 

To: eschrepf@npca.org 

From: Jeanhee Hong/R9/USEPA/US 

Date: 04/08/2011 11:58AM 

Cc: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: Request for extension of comment period in EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0131 

Dear Ms. Schrepf, 

Please see attached letter in response to your April 5, 2011 request for an extension of the comment 

period in EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0131. Thank you. 

(See attached file: npca letter.pdf) npca letter.pdf
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, John W. Peters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 9, 2007 /s/ John W. Peters John W. Peters Principal Financial Officer
#### DOLPHIN BAY JOINT VENTURE, Petitioner, v. ELLIOTT POINT COMMUNITY GROUP, INC., and City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Respondents.

No. 98-2520.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 1999.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1999.

*429Robert C. Apgar, Tallahassee, Attorney for Petitioner.

David A. Theriaque and Martha L. Ne-belshiek, Tallahassee, Attorneys for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., CONCUR.

BENTON, J., DISSENTS.
33809.

#### SUGGS v. SUGGS.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the former wife in a divorce, alimony and child custody suit. The wife filed suit in Chattahoochee County for divorce, alimony, and child custody. Thereafter, the parties reconciled and moved to DeKalb County. The Chattahoochee County suit was not dismissed, although the wife had agreed to dismiss it as a condition of a reconciliation that was of record in the case. The wife was committed to the Georgia Mental Health Institute in Atlanta, DeKalb County, Georgia. Subsequently, the husband filed suit for divorce in DeKalb Superior Court. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the wife, an answer admitting jurisdiction was filed, and two hearings on temporary alimony and child custody were held. The DeKalb Superior Court entered an order granting a divorce, reserving the issues of custody, alimony, property division, and attorney fees, and continuing the temporary custody and alimony award.

The wife then hired new counsel, who obtained a decree in the Chattahoochee County case, granting her a divorce, alimony and child custody. Her new attorney then sought to set up this decree as res judicata in the DeKalb County suit. The DeKalb Superior Court,, having received in evidence a certified copy of the Chattahoochee County decree and a copy of the husband’s equitable complaint to set aside the Chattahoochee County decree, overruled the wife’s plea of res judicata. The DeKalb Superior Court then entered final judgment in the divorce case.

The wife assigns error on the overruling of her plea of res judicata. The husband has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, attaching a certified copy of the order of the Chattahoochee Superior Court setting aside the decree of that court.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted qnd the appeal is dismissed. The order of the Superior Court of Chattahoochee County setting aside its previous judgment that formed the basis of the wife’s plea of res judicata moots the enumerations of error and requires *393dismissal of the appeal.

Submitted July 7, 1978

Decided October 18, 1978.

*Martin L. Cowen, III,*for appellant.

*Sam G. Dickson,*for appellee.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### F. C. Gerlach & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6466.

Entry No. 701520, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, June 1943, etc.

Certified June 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 19, 1943, etc.

(Decided October 28, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# “The 10 lenses,” diversity inclusion training held in Richmond

By Bonnie KoenigDLA Aviation public affairs

                Richmond, Virginia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Strategic EngagementDLA AviationWarfighter FirstResiliencyEqual Employment Opportunity and Diversitysupplier operations
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO BAYARDO SANDOVAL,

Petitioner,

ALBERTA HERNANDEZ

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73689

Agency No. A095

- 304

- 031

A095

- 304

- 032

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10 , 20 20 **

Pasadena

, California

Before: WATFORD and BENNETT, Circuit Judges , and RAKOFF, ** * District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Petitioners Guillermo Bayardo Sandoval and Alberta Hernandez

, natives and

citizens of Mexico, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appea l s den ying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §

1252 and “ review the Board ’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of

discretion, but review purely legal questions de novo. ” Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d

575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review

.

The B oard did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as

untimely. Petitioners filed their motion to reopen well outside the statutory 90

- day

window, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) , and cannot eq uitabl y tol l the deadline

based on ineffective assistance of counsel because they have not shown due

diligence after 2011 . For instance, Petitioners did not show due diligence when

they failed to follow Attorney Hill’s advice that they seek relief when the ir son

turned 21 years old. S

ee Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011)

(factors for determining whether a petitioner showed due diligence include

“whether petitioner took reasonable steps to investigate the suspected fraud or

error, or, if petitioner is ignorant of counsel’s shortcomings, whether petitioner

made reasonable efforts to pursue relief”) ; cf. Ghahremani v. Gonzales , 498 F.3d

993

, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (diligence shown by continuous investigation

, pursuit of3

relief

, and “ unbroken e fforts to retain competent counsel ” ). 1

Because the determination regarding equitable tolling is dispositive, we do

not reach the merits of petitioners’ argument regarding ineffective assistance of

counsel. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and

agencies are not required to reach non

- dispositive issues).

The petition for review is DENIED

.

1 Nor can Petitioners rely on the advice of unnamed attorneys to show diligence.

See Bonilla , 840 F.3d at 58 3.
### Docket Number FAA - 2014- 0488 **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Durrani, A. K.

613 - 952 - 4357 6/18/2014 Emailed. No objections.

Bom bardier Aerospa ce Jason Hochstein

514 - 855 - 5000 X 59594 6/24/2014 Called and left voicemail

Regional Airline Association Stacey Bechdolt

202 - 367 - 1170 bechdolt@raa.org . 6/24/2014 Called and left voicemail. Emailed.