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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1119 

To permit an alien to remain eligible for a diversity visa beyond the fiscal 

year in which the alien applied for the visa, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2005 

Mr. CHAMBLISS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit an alien to remain eligible for a diversity visa 

beyond the fiscal year in which the alien applied for 

the visa, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Diversity Visa Fair5 ness Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DIVERSITY LOTTERY VISAS. 

7 (a) AVAILABILITY BEYOND FISCAL YEAR.—Section 

8 204(a)(1)(I)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

9 (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)) is amended by striking sub10 clause (II) and inserting the following: 
2 

•S 1119 IS

1 ‘‘(II) An alien who qualifies, 

2 through random selection, for a visa 

3 under section 203(c) or adjustment of 

4 status under section 245(a) shall re5 main eligible to receive such visa or 

6 adjustment of status beyond the end 

7 of the specific fiscal year for which 

8 the alien was selected if the alien— 

9 ‘‘(aa) properly applied for 

10 such visa or adjustment of status 

11 during the fiscal year for which 

12 alien was selected; and 

13 ‘‘(bb) was notified by the 

14 Secretary of State, through the 

15 publication of the Visa Bulletin, 

16 that the application was author17 ized.’’. 

18 (b) APPLICATION TO PRIOR FISCAL YEARS.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

20 provision of law, a visa shall be available under sec21 tion 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

22 (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) if— 

23 (A) such alien was eligible for and properly 

24 applied for an adjustment of status under sec-
3 

•S 1119 IS

1 tion 245 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) during a 

2 fiscal year between 1998 and 2004; 

3 (B) the application submitted by such alien 

4 was denied because personnel of the Depart5 ment of Homeland Security or the Immigration 

6 and Naturalization Service failed to adjudicate 

7 such application during the fiscal year in which 

8 such application was filed; 

9 (C) such alien moves to reopen such ad10 justment of status applications pursuant to pro11 cedures or instructions provided by the Sec12 retary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of 

13 State; and 

14 (D) such alien has continuously resided in 

15 the United States since the date of submitting 

16 such application. 

17 (2) RELATIONSHIP TO WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF

18 DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.—A visa made available 

19 under paragraph (1) may not be counted toward the 

20 numerical maximum for the worldwide level of set 

21 out in section 201(e) of the Immigration and Na22 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(e)). 

23 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

24 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2005. 

Æ
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY 

11 Jan 11 

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC-10 

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3O 

 6500 South MacArthur Blvd 

 Bldg 4, Room 124 

 Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

SUBJECT: Title 14 CFR Exemption 5891G (Regulatory Docket FAA-2001-9618) 

1. Title 14 CFR Exemption 5891 was granted to the United States Air Force on 4 May 1994. As 

amended to 5891G, it exempts the USAF from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.209 (a) and 

(b) through 30 April 2011. The requirement for USAF helicopter aircraft to conduct night-vision 

device flight training operations without lighted aircraft position lights up to 500 feet above 

ground level remains unchanged. On behalf of the USAF, I hereby request an extension in 

accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 11. 

2. If you have questions or need further information, please contact me at (405) 739-9783 or 

email: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil. I appreciate your assistance. 

 

 

TIMOTHY M. KERSEY, Lt Col, USAF 

 Chief, Flight Standards Division 

GLOBAL ACCESS FOR AMERICA
EXHIBIT 23.
                                     
                                     
      
      
      
      
                                     
                                     
                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
 of AMC Entertainment Inc.
Kansas City, Missouri



We  consent  to  the  incorporation by  reference  in  the  registration
statement of AMC Entertainment Inc.  on Form S-8 (File Nos.  33-58129, 2-
92048,  2-97522 and 2-97523) of our report dated May 16,  1997,  on  our
audits  of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule  of AMC Entertainment Inc.  as of April 3, 1997 and  March  28,
1996,  and  for  each of the three years (53/52 weeks)  ended  April  3,
1997, which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.



/s/ Coopers & Lybrand
Kansas City, Missouri
June 30, 1997

<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2187 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2187

    To remove the sunset date for amendments to the Small Business 
            Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2012

  Mr. Cardin (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small 
                     Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To remove the sunset date for amendments to the Small Business 
            Investment Act of 1958, 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. REMOVAL OF SUNSET DATES FOR CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SMALL 
              BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    (a) Maximum Bond Amount.--Section 411(a)(1) of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 694b(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
``does not exceed'' and all that follows and inserting ``does not 
exceed $5,000,000.''.
    (b) Denial of Liability.--Section 411(e)(2) of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 694b(e)(2)) is amended by striking 
``bonds exceeds'' and all that follows and inserting ``bonds exceeds 
$5,000,000,''.
                                 <all>
```
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS



### * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DIANA SCHMAUDER, *

*

* No. 1 9

- 186 V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Filed: April 16, 2021

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Entitlement; On

- Table injury.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop

, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates

, Beverly Hills, CA , for Petitioner;

Adriana R. Teitel , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT 1

On January 31, 2019

, Diana Schmauder sought compensatio n for shoulder injury related

to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following her Prevnar 13 vaccination on July 13, 2016

. M s. Schmauder seeks compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 through 3 4 (20 12 ).

On January 28, 2021, a fact hearing was held to determine the onset of Ms. Schmauder’s

injury. A ruling was then issued on February 1, 2021, finding that Ms. Schmauder’s shoulder

pain began within 48 hours of her vaccination. Also

, on February 1, 2021, the undersigned

issued a tentative finding regarding the amount of damages for pain and suffering totaling

$72,500.

In an amended Rule 4 (c) report filed on March 30, 2021 , respondent stated that he will

not continue to the defend agai nst Ms. Schmauder’s claim . Respondent stated that the Division

of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services, has reviewed the

1 The E

- Government Act

, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services) , requires that the Court post this ruling on its

website. This posting will make the ruling available to anyone with the internet. Pursuant to

Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 da ys to file a motion proposing redaction of medical

information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions

ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

facts of this case and have concluded that “[r]ecognizing that the Special Master’s factual

finding, t hat the onset of petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within forty

- eight hours of her

vaccination, is the law of the case, respondent advises that he will not defend the case on other

grounds during further proceedings before the Office of Special Masters.” Resp’t’s Am. Rep.,

filed Mar. 30, 2021, at 2.

Special masters may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to compensation based

upon the record. A hearing is not required. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). Based

upon a review of the record a s a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner has established that

s he is entitled to compensation for her injur y

.

Accordingly, M s. Schmauder is entitled to compensation.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Haley Hawkins , at (202) 357

- 63 6 0

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries III, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: February 2, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries III, Inc.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report of T.H. Lehman & Co., Incorporated (the
      "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Raffaele Attar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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







Date:
      June 22, 2006





By:
            /s/
                Gary PoeGary
                PoePrincipal
                Financial Officer and Secretary
***Plain Talk About...***
**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**










In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Third Century Bancorp on Form 10-QSB
      for
      the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), I, Debra K. Harlow, Chief Financial Officer of Third
      Century Bancorp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Third
                Century Bancorp.













/s/
      Debra K.
      Harlow


Debra
      K.
      Harlow


Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)





August
      11, 2006





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
      and is not being filed for any other purpose.
Exhibit 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the quarterly  report of Cyberads,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: November 16, 2004          CYBERADS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ WALTER TATUM
                                 --------------------------
                                 Walter Tatum, President,
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Jagged Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended September 29, 2006, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
November 10, 2006



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Andrew J. Norstrud 
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 232 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the manufacturer 

limitation on the number of new qualified plug-in electric drive motor 

vehicles eligible for credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2011 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the manufacturer limitation on the number of new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles eligible for credit. 

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


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 232 IS

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MANUFACTURER LIMITATION ON 

2 THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELEC3 TRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES ELIGIBLE FOR 

4 CREDIT. 

5 Paragraph (2) of section 30D(e) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘200,000’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘500,000’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
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





Section
1350 Certification





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of COMSTOCK MINING Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Corrado
De Gasperis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:





(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities 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:  November
12, 2010





/s/
      Corrado De GasperisCorrado
      De GasperisChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00477-CR

Detrick DEROVEN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1996-CR-3437A

Honorable Kristina Escalona, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 14, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

In trial court cause number 1996-CR-3437A, Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty 

of capital murder—multiple persons. On November 20, 1997, the trial court sentenced Appellant 

to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division for life. 

On January 18, 2022, Appellant filed a motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(a-1). The State filed its response, and the trial court 

denied the motion on March 16, 2022. An appeal from the decision on a motion for forensic DNA 

testing “is to a court of appeals in the same manner as an appeal of any other criminal matter.” Id.
04-23-00477-CR

- 2 -

art. 64.05; see Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“[A]n order 

denying DNA testing is an ‘appealable order’ under Rule 25.2(a)(2).”). 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on April 18, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); Olivo 

v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). More than one year later, on April 27, 

2023, Appellant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal of the denial of his 

motion for post-conviction DNA testing. 

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 

S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (stating that an out-of-time appeal from a final felony 

conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

1998, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3) (“Post-conviction 

writs of habeas corpus are to be filed in the trial court in which the conviction was obtained [and]

made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals.”).

On May 10, 2023, we ordered Appellant to show cause in writing by May 31, 2023, why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; Ater, 

802 S.W.2d at 243.

On May 30, 2023, Appellant, acting pro se, filed an Inmate Declaration of Indigence, a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a docketing statement. These documents do not show 

how Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely or otherwise demonstrate how this court’s jurisdiction 

has been invoked. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Yellowstone - Worst - Total Extinction Yellowstone - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

YELL2 NIA 2000 20 40.87 YELL2 NIA 2000 20 4.16

YELL2 NIA 2001 22 38.88 YELL2 NIA 2001 22 4.71

YELL2 NIA 2002 22 31.83 YELL2 NIA 2002 22 3.8

YELL2 NIA 2003 21 31.37 YELL2 NIA 2003 21 4.07

YELL2 NIA 2004 23 29.79 YELL2 NIA 2004 23 4.57

172.74 Total 21.31 Total

34.548 Average 4.262 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 12%

Yellowstone - Best - Total Extinction Yellowstone - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

YELL2 NIA 2000 19 13.24 YELL2 NIA 2000 19 1.68

YELL2 NIA 2001 21 13.55 YELL2 NIA 2001 21 1.92

YELL2 NIA 2002 21 12.99 YELL2 NIA 2002 21 1.32

YELL2 NIA 2003 20 12.15 YELL2 NIA 2003 20 1.12

YELL2 NIA 2004 22 13.03 YELL2 NIA 2004 22 1.33

64.96 Total 7.37 Total

12.992 Average 1.474 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 11%

North Absaroka - Worst - Total Extinction North Absaroka - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

NOAB1 NIA 2002 22 28.72 NOAB1 NIA 2002 22 5.35

NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 41.43 NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 4.67

NOAB1 NIA 2004 23 28.05 NOAB1 NIA 2004 23 4.59

98.2 Total 14.61 Total

32.73333 Average 4.87 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 15%

North Absaroka - Best - Total Extinction North Absaroka - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

NOAB1 NIA 2002 21 12.55 NOAB1 NIA 2002 21 1.26

NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 12.07 NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 0.91

NOAB1 NIA 2004 22 12.21 NOAB1 NIA 2004 22 1.15

36.83 Total 3.32 Total

12.27667 Average 1.1066667 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 9%

Bridger - Worst - Total Extinction Bridger - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

BRID1 NIA 2000 22 31.07 BRID1 NIA 2000 22 4.49

BRID1 NIA 2001 23 30.02 BRID1 NIA 2001 23 5.9

BRID1 NIA 2002 22 34.56 BRID1 NIA 2002 22 4.32

BRID1 NIA 2003 24 34.04 BRID1 NIA 2003 24 4.93

BRID1 NIA 2004 25 28.3 BRID1 NIA 2004 25 5.32

157.99 Total 24.96 Total

31.598 Average 4.992 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 16%

Bridger - Best - Total Extinction Bridger - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

BRID1 NIA 2000 21 12.89 BRID1 NIA 2000 21 1.87

BRID1 NIA 2001 22 12.9 BRID1 NIA 2001 22 1.65

BRID1 NIA 2002 22 12.33 BRID1 NIA 2002 22 1.4

BRID1 NIA 2003 23 11.83 BRID1 NIA 2003 23 1.11

BRID1 NIA 2004 24 11.96 BRID1 NIA 2004 24 1.25

61.91 Total 7.28 Total

12.382 Average 1.456 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 12%