alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Stream quality in Appalachia as related to coal-mine drainage, 1965

By: James E. BieseckerJ. Richard George

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir526

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

A stream-quality reconnaissance at 318 locations in May 1965 offered the first opportunity for a contemporaneous regional collection and appraisal of water-quality data in Appalachia. The results provide a means of regional comparison of the influence of coal-mine drainage on stream quality at approximately median streamflow. The results disclose that the chemical quality of the water at nearly 200 sites did not meet recommended drinking-water standards. At many of these sites, inferior quality was caused by excessive concentrations of solutes commonly associated with coalmine waters. Water-quality damage from mine drainage is particularly severe in the more heavily mined northern one-third of the region where high sulfate content, free mineral acidity, and low pH are typical of most affected streams. A deficiency in natural stream alkalinity in this part of the coal region contributes greatly to the massive effect of mine drainage upon stream quality. However, data collected from streams affected by mine drainage along the west edge of this part of the coal field suggest extensive neutralization of mine water. In southern Appalachia coal-mine drainage had less influence on stream quality than in northern Appalachia. Fewer streams in this area were influenced by mine drainage, and the magnitude of stream damage for affected streams was less than in northern Appalachia. 

#### Study Area

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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-61057

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRAD BINGHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:03-CR-31-ALL

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brad Bingham pleaded guilty to two counts of distribution

in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine. The district court

sentenced Bingham to concurrent terms of 97 months in prison

for each of the two counts of conviction. The district court

also imposed concurrent five-year terms of supervised release. 

Bingham, proceeding pro se, appeals his sentence. 
No. 03-61057

-2-

 Bingham argues that the district court erred in considering

the amounts of narcotics listed in the dismissed counts of the

indictment as relevant conduct to his methamphetamine trafficking

offenses. The district court may consider drug offenses not

specified in the count of conviction if they are part of the

same course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan. 

United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 118 (5th Cir. 1995);

U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.3(a)(2), 2D1.1, comment. (n.12). Because all of

the narcotics trafficking occurred within a six week period,

Bingham has not demonstrated that the district court clearly

erred in including all of the dismissed counts as relevant

conduct. United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 589-90 (5th Cir.

2000); United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir.

1993). 

 Bingham argues that a single criminal history point should

be deleted because the original presentence report (PSR) did not

verify that he was represented by counsel with regard to the

misdemeanor conviction. See United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d

272, 305 (5th Cir. 1999). At sentencing, the district court

found that court records showed that Bingham was represented for

the March 25, 1997, conviction. Bingham does not assert that he

was not represented, he simply argues that the court records

cannot be verified independently. This is not sufficient to show

that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that
No. 03-61057

-3-

Bingham had been represented in the proceeding in question. 

See McCaskey, 9 F.3d at 372. 

Bingham argues that the district court erred when it failed

to reduce his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, the “safety valve”

provision. As discussed above, the district court did not

err in finding that Bingham had two criminal history points. 

Bingham was disqualified by § 5C1.2(a)(1) from receiving a safety

valve reduction. United States v. Flanagan, 87 F.3d 121, 124-25

(5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
No. 53288.

#### Topken Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 494654-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit      32**

**Section      1350 Certifications**

| Dated:                May 18, 2006 |                                                                    |                                |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                         |
|                                    |                                                                         | /s/                Douglas N. Dixon |
|                               | Douglas                N. DixonChief                  Executive Officer |

| Dated:                May 18, 2006 |                                                                                                          |                               |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                                                               |
|                                    |                                                                                                               | /s/                  G. Dennis Key |
|                               | G.                  Dennis Key                  Chief                    Financial                    Officer |

----
(LOGO)

America First
CREDIT UNION

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1998 fiscal year:

(A)I have reviewed the  activities and  performance  of the Servicer  during the
preceding  fiscal  year  under  the  terms  of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement  and/or Seller/Servicer Guide and to
the best of these  Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has  fulfilled all of its
duties,  responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements  throughout such
year,  or if there has been a default or failure of the  servicer to perform any
of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a description of each default
or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported to Norwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A.;

(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
servicer in good standing;

(c) I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
Policy and any other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer  Guide
are in full force and effect;

(D) All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
applicable) and Primary Mortgage Insurance Policy (if applicable),  with respect
to each Mortgaged Property,  have been paid and that all such insurance policies
are in full force and effect;

(E) All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on any
Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses have not
been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property, the reason for the non-payment
has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N~.;

(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G) All annual  reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
required  per  section  605GH,  6050J and 6050P of the  Internal  Revenue  Code,
respectively, have been prepared and filed.


Chief Financial Officer

Title

April 14, 1999

Date

With You In Mind

P.O. BOX 9338 * OGDEN, UT 84409 * (801) 778-8485 * SALT LAKE CITY, UT *
(801) 966-5553 EXT. 8485 * WATS-IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATE
1-800-999-3961 EXT. 8485
www. americafirst.com
Case No. 6,971.

#### HYDE v. FOLGER et al.

[4 McLean, 255.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1847.

Equity Practice — Ejectment—Injunction— Parties.

1. By statute, an action of ejectment, in Michigan, must be brought against the tenant in possession. If no one be in possession, suit must be brought against any one exercising acts of ownership over the premises, or who claims title thereto.

2. A bill being filed by complainant, represented that he had purchased and paid for the land, and prayed that a title might be decreed, and for an injunction, etc. It was objected that the name of Hyde, the complainant, is not known in the proceedings at law. The court required the tenant in possession, to be named as co-complainant.

In equity.

Mr. Witherell, for complainant.

Mr. Backus, for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT. The bill states that the land in controversy in 1840, was purchased by complainant from Thomas Folger, by his agent, Henry G. Folger, who was authorized to sell the same by letter. That the said Henry was then in possession of the same, the terms not specially recollected. But complainant purchased the land and paid for it, in property and money, the sum of seven thousand dollars. In 1842 Thomas Folger died, and the land descended to his heirs, who are made defendants. That a deed was made by the said Henry, which, by the letter, he was not authorized to make. Since the death of Thomas, his heirs commenced an ejectment to recover the possession of the land, which action is still pending. And an injunction is prayed, and that the heirs may be compelled to make a good title, etc.

The motion for an injunction is resisted, on the ground that the name of Hyde is not known to the suit at law, his tenant being sued. By the 4th section of the act of Michigan, 1838, Revised Statutes, it is provided: “If the premises for which the action is brought, are actually occupied by any person, such actual occupant shall be named defendant in the declaration, by which the suit is commenced; if no occupant, the action must be brought against some one exercising acts of ownership on the premises claimed, or claiming title thereto, or some interest therein, at the commencement of the suit.” Section 6: “No names, other than the real claimants and the real defendants, shall be used.” The court required the tenant Jerome to be named as co-complainant, and granted the injunction. Under the statute, the name of the landlord may be inserted on the record, on proof of his claim, and he will be permitted to defend.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1623 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1623

    To provide a processing extension for emergency mortgage relief 
                   payments, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2011

 Mr. Casey (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide a processing extension for emergency mortgage relief 
                   payments, 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. EXTENSION.

    Section 109 of the Emergency Housing Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2708), 
as amended by section 1496 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203; 124 Stat. 2209), is 
amended--
            (1) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        and'';
            (2) by striking ``mortgagor receiving'' and inserting the 
        following: ``mortgagor--
            ``(1) receiving''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) who applied for a loan, advance, or emergency 
        mortgage relief payments under this title on or before 
        September 30, 2011, and was approved to receive the benefit of 
        such loan, advance, or emergency mortgage relief on or before 
        December 31, 2011.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 96-690.

#### North Belle Vernon Borough et al. *v.*Livingstone et vir.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
APHIS Factsheet

Biotechnology Regulatory Services July 2012

Questions and 

Answers: Bayer 

CropScience - 

Double-HerbicideTolerant soybean 

(Event FG72)

 APHIS received a petition from Bayer Crop 

Science in November 2009, seeking a determination 

of nonregulated status for soybean FG72 which 

provides tolerance to the herbicides glyphosate and 

isoxaflutole (IFT). 

 APHIS is making available for public comment 

the Bayer petition for nonregulated status, the 

Agency’s draft plant pest risk assessment, and 

draft environmental assessment for the proposed 

determination of nonregulated status. 

Q: What is Glyphosate?

A: Glyphosate is a commonly used herbicide used 

to kill weeds. When applied to glyphosate resistant 

crops, its helps control weeds without damaging the 

crop.

Q: What is IFT herbicide?

A: IFT is an herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds 

and grasses. It has been used by farmers in the 

United States since 1999. 

Q: Has soybean FG72 been field tested in the U.S.?

A: Yes, it has been field tested in the major soybean 

growing regions of the continental United States. All 

field tests were conducted under permits, including 

strict movement controls, granted by USDA APHIS.

Q: What is the next step following the comment 

period?

A: After the comment period closes, APHIS will 

carefully consider all written comments received 

during the comment period and any other relevant 

information; any substantive issues identified by 

APHIS based on our review of the petition and 

our evaluation and analysis of comments will be 

considered as the Agency finalizes its environmental 

assessment and plant pest risk assessment and 

makes its regulatory determination in response to the 

petition for nonregulated status.

United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2023

No. 04-22-00460-CV

MILLSWORTH ENTERPRISES, LLC and Bo Fontana,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS FIRST RENTALS, LLC,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI04865

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 26, 2022, appellant filed with this court a motion for extension of time to file its 

notice of appeal. That motion was held in abeyance pending the filing of the clerks’ record. On 

September 13, 2022, the clerk’s record was filed. The trial court signed an “Order Confirming 

Arbitration Award Final Judgment” on June 24, 2022. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal 

was due on July 25, 2022. On July 26, 2022, appellant filed its notice of appeal and a motion for 

extension of time to file the notice of appeal. The motion presents a reasonable explanation for 

the one-day delay in filing the notice of appeal. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of February, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 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 and Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August                10, 2007 | By:*/s/*Robert Kohn                    |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                            | Robert                Kohn             |
|                                            | Chief                Executive Officer |
#### STATE ex rel. Jarrod Ashley WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-1205.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1999.

IN RE: Wilson, Jarrod Ashley; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Jefferson Davis 31st Judicial District Court Number 1883-96; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CR97-1024

Denied.

KNOLL, J. not on panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000102109
<NAME>                        UNIVERSAL SECURITY INSTRUMENTS, INC.

<S>                             <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1999         MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999         SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                            191,887             191,887
<SECURITIES>                            0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,006,060           1,006,060
<ALLOWANCES>                      100,000             100,000
<INVENTORY>                     1,777,650           1,777,650
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,932,639           2,932,639
<PP&E>                          1,324,101           1,324,101
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,109,809           1,109,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,517,022           5,517,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,521,626           1,521,626
<BONDS>                         1,521,626           1,521,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0                   0
<COMMON>                            9,037               9,037
<OTHER-SE>                      3,986,359           3,986,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    5,517,022           5,517,022
<SALES>                         1,821,314           3,879,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,821,314           3,879,665
<CGS>                           1,845,235           3,432,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,845,235           3,432,373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  618,533           1,291,179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 32,600              80,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (663,114)            (12,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                   0
<CHANGES>                               0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                     (663,114)            (12,245)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (.73)               (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.73)               (.01)



</TABLE>
# C_2012303EN.01001302.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2012 — Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd

(Case C-326/12)

2012/C 303/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Essen-Süd

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the flat-rate taxation of income from so-called ‘intransparent’ (domestic and) foreign investment funds under Paragraph 6 of the Law on Investment Tax (Investmentsteuergesetz) infringe European Community law (Article 56 EC) because it amounts to a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 58(3)) EC)?

---