alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
“Discovery” Worksheet

Discovery Room: (Inside Room) 

1. Look at a flight feather with the hand lens and notice the barbs. What holds 

these individual barbs together? _____________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

2. How many different types of nests are on display? ____ Name the types ____ 

________________________________________________________________ 

3. Why are eggs different shapes and colors? __________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Look at the skulls. What kind of mammal does not have canine teeth? ______ 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Examine the owl pellet display. Make two drawings of bones found: 

6. Study the Eagle mount. Eagles do not normally feed on live, healthy birds. 

Why do you think this eagle has a mallard in its clutches? __________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Visitor Center: (Diorama Area) 

1. Why is it important to keep water in permanent ponds all year long on the

Refuge? _________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 
2. Notice the American bittern in the watergrass section. Why do you think it is 

posed this way and what is the purpose of its coloration? ___________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

3. Flying over the seasonal marsh are some pintail ducks. Notice the different 

coloration. What is the advantage or reason for this difference? ______________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Uplands habitat is home for many animals other than those shown here. 

Name two other animals that would feel at home in this habitat: ______________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Kiosk Panels: (Outside) 

1. What has been the biggest problem for wetlands? _____________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

2. Why was the Sacramento NWR established? __________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

3. What is the name of the plan that helps North American waterfowl? ________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Where do most of the geese found at Sacramento NWR during the winter 

nest? ___________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-0204

LT Case No. 16-2022-CF-000138-AXXX

_____________________________

ROBERT LEON HAYNES, II,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler K. Payne, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina Piotrowski, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

November 14, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE, BOATWRIGHT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21478]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA97-616-000]


The Washington Water Power Company; Notice of Filing

August 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 9, 1997, The Washington Water Power 
Company, pursuant to the Commission's Order No. 888-A issued March 4, 
1997, tendered for filing with the Commission a revised Open Access 
Transmission Tariff--FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 8.
    Copies of this filing were provided to the Idaho Public Utilities 
Commission, Washington Utilities Transportation Commission, and parties 
to this Docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before August 21, 1997. 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 motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21478 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2014421EN.01001402.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — E v B

(Case C-436/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 8, 12 and 15 - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Proceedings relating to the custody of a child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother - Prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of a court of the Member State of residence of the father - Scope))

2014/C 421/19

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E

Applicant:

Defendant: B

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which has been prorogued, under Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, in favour of a court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceases following a final judgment in those proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.

1

---
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 V, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 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 13, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries V, Inc.
# DLA Distribution Commanding General's Memorial Day Message

/ Published May 29, 2017
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution Team,

Memorial Day marks the unofficial beginning of summer and many of our service men and women, civilian employees, and contractor teammates will celebrate with barbecues, picnics, parades, and extended travel plans.   As the number of outdoor activities increase, please be aware of your surroundings and be safe.  It's important to remember that summer brings a new set of risks and we traditionally see an increased number of off-duty accidents involving alcohol consumption, reckless driving, failure to use seatbelts, and overexertion during swimming.  Every member of the Distribution team is important and even our most experienced teammates need a safety reminder from their battle buddy...keep each other safe.  

Yet Memorial Day is so much more than a day off to barbecue....it is a day which has been set aside as a time for remembrance of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our great country.  Originally known as Decoration Day, it originated in the years following the Civil War and became an official federal holiday in 1971.  While celebrating time with friends and family, I ask each of you to take a moment and participate in the National Moment of Remembrance, a call to voluntarily and informally pause at 3:00 PM local time on Monday, Memorial Day, to reflect on and remember those Americans who died in service to our Nation.  Congress established the National Moment of Remembrance in 2000, reportedly after a group of schoolchildren touring the U.S. Capitol were asked about the meaning of Memorial Day...their reply...“it’s the day the pool opens.”  

Let us re-commit ourselves to remember the true meaning of Memorial Day as a day to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation.  We can do this in so many simple, yet meaningful ways like visiting memorials or cemeteries, placing flags or flowers on the graves of those fallen service members, and pledging to help those widows and widowers, parents, and children of the fallen.

Ms. Gonzales and I encourage each of you to enjoy this holiday weekend with family and friends, to relax and recharge your batteries, but most importantly, to honor all those who gave their lives to preserve our freedom and liberty.  We are proud to be part of the Distribution team which always delivers the Right Things...at the Right place, at the Right time!

v/r,

BG John S. Laskodi

Commanding General

DLA Distribution

DLA Distribution - Right Things....at the Right Place, at the Right Time!

We are DLA - America's Combat Logistics Support Agency!
No. 9202.

#### Taggart *v.*The Keasey Pulley Company.

(Decided April 10, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. Johnson Thurston*and *Mr. C. A. Seiders,*for plaintiff in error. .

*Messrs. Southard & Southard,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed. . Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for the reason that the court of common pleas erred on the trial of said case in refusing to admit in evidence the two letters marked Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 21 and attached to the bill of exceptions, and also for' the reason that the said court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. And this court proceeding to render the judgment which the said circuit court should have rendered, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of said court of common pleas he and it hereby is reversed and said cause is remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
# C_2012065EN.01002901.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/29

---

Action brought on 23 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-10/12)

2012/C 65/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decision refusing to grant daily subsistence allowances to the applicant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 24 May 2011 and the explicit decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2011, and order the Commission to pay the daily subsistence allowance. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 24 May 2011 and the explicit decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2011, and order the Commission to pay the daily subsistence allowance.

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22671]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD11-97-006]
RIN 2115-AE46


Special Local Regulations; Thunderboat Regatta

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Implementation of rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document implements 33 CFR 100.1101, ``Southern 
California annual marine events, for the ``World Series of Powerboat 
Racing'' listed as ``Thunderboat Regatta.''
    This event consists of circle races by various classes of 
Hydroplane racing boats and a separate but adjacent venue for dragboat 
racing. These regulations will be effective in an area of San Diego's 
Mission Bay known as Fiesta Bay, as described in Table 1 of 33 CFR 
100.1101. Implementation of 33 CFR 100.1101 is necessary to control 
vessel traffic in the regulated areas during the event to ensure the 
safety of participants and spectators.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 100.1101(b)(3), Commander, Coast Guard 
Activities San Diego, is designated Patrol Commander for this event; he 
has the authority to delegate this responsibility to any commissioned, 
warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This section becomes effective at 8 a.m. PDT on 
September 12, 1997 and terminates at 5 p.m. PDT on September 14, 1997 
unless canceled earlier by Commander, Coast Guard Activities San Diego.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
QMC Michael C. Claeys, U.S. Coast Guard Activities San Diego, 
California; Tel: (619) 683-6309.
    Discussion of Implementation. The World Series of Powerboat Racing 
is scheduled to occur on September 12, 13, and 14, 1997. These Special 
Local Regulations permit Coast Guard control of vessel traffic in order 
to ensure the safety of spectators and participant vessels. In 
accordance with the regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101, no persons or 
vessels shall block, anchor, or loiter in the regulated area; nor shall 
any person or vessel transit through the regulated area, or otherwise 
impede the transit of participant or official patrol vessels in the 
regulated area, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander.

    Dated: August 8, 1997.
J.M. MacDonald,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District 
Acting.
[FR Doc. 97-22671 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Skip Links

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Digital Data Series 069–S

----

**Suggested citation:**

Roberts, S.B.,  compiler, 2008, Geologic assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable coalbed-gas resources in Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks, North Slope and adjacent State waters, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–S, 4 chapters, 1 CD-ROM.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



American Physicians Service Group, Inc.

Austin, Texas



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-07427, No. 333-62233, No. 333-116848 and No. 333-133544) of American Physicians Service Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 3, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of American Physicians Service Group, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting which appear in this Form 10-K.



/s/  BDO Seidman, LLP





Houston, Texas

March 4, 2009
# Travel authorizations streamlined, DTS compliance rates improved

/ Published Dec. 29, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
A last minute, overseas mission was put into jeopardy earlier this year due to errors in employees’ Defense Travel System accounts. That forced DTS experts at Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support to scramble to ensure the mission could be executed as planned.

Scenarios like this became frequent enough to push two Troop Support employees to peak under the hood of DTS to determine what was causing it to stall, said Jontell Platts, who teamed with fellow Command Support Office management and program analyst Ray Finch.

“We had had enough of that,” Finch said. 

The team worked with the Continuous Process Improvement office to initiate a formal CPI project, with Finch serving as the project facilitator and Platts serving as a team member. 

Peter Stupak, a management and program analyst in the CPI office, served as the team lead and helped the team apply lean principles, which aim to maximize customer value while minimizing waste, in its effort to increase DTS compliance rates from 78 percent to above 90 percent. 

Their first objective was to clean up the surplus of invalid traveler accounts. Platts said they relied upon support from the DTS team at Fort Belvoir to help correct the errors. In all, they removed 708 invalid accounts from the system – nearly 40 percent of total accounts.

They also addressed problems with the routing lists in the approval process for DTS authorizations and vouchers. Many of the routing lists suffered from single points of failure, in which if a particular approval official was not available, then the approval wouldn’t move forward. 

“A lot of people’s orders were just stuck in one place,” Platts said. “There was no back up.”

Finch and Platts eliminated the single points of failure by reducing the number of routing lists and redesigning them to ensure multiple approval officials were assigned to each traveler’s account.

The team also created a quick-reference guide to assist DTS travelers and approving officials.

Their efforts paid dividends within a few months as Troop Support’s DTS compliance rate averaged 93 percent from July to October.

The swift success was no surprise to the CPI office. 

“They demonstrated a firm understanding of the various tools used to perform the analysis and translated their knowledge of travel regulations into actionable outcomes with a lasting impact,” Stupak said. “Troop Support will reap the benefits of their efforts because the job aid they created helps travelers avoid common pitfalls and arms them with the information needed before they travel so their vouchers are submitted correctly.”
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6076

BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY W. HUFFMAN, Director,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-97-747-R)

Submitted: June 16, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Richardson v.

Huffman, No. CA-97-747-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 9 and Dec. 17, 1997). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### L. M. BARRIE v. NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY.1

March 6, 1908.

Nos. 15,500—(227).

Action in the district court for Pine county to recover $1,000 upon a fire insurance policy. The case was tried before Stolberg, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,063.63. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*M. S. Bout elle*and *ft. IL. Chase,*for appellant.

*Thos. J. McDermott,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 115 N. W. 1132.

PER CURIAM.

This action was begun by respondent in the district court of Pine county to recover upon a policy of fire insurance issued by defendant and appellant. The answer admitted the issuance of the policy but traversed the allegations of the complaint with reference to the amount of loss and damage. By way of affirmative defense, it alleged that the condition in the policy — to the effect that the same should be void if the assured had, at the time of the issuance thereof, or should thereafter take, any other insurance on the property without assent — had been violated by the procurement by respondent of additional insurance without the consent of appellant, covering the principal item of property insured; and that said additional insurance was outstanding and constituted valid and subsisting insurance at the time of the fire. The reply admitted the procurement of the subsequent insurance but alleged that the same was made with the full knowledge and consent of appellant. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $1,063.63. This appeal was taken from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

It was stipulated by the parties that if the plaintiff was entitled to any amount, she was entitled to the full amount of the verdict, as rendered; and that the only question for consideration was whether the evidence justified the jury in finding that assent was given to the additional insurance. The only substantial question thus presented was one of fact. Plaintiff’s testimony was not strong nor convincing but is shown by the record to have been sufficient to sustain the verdict within the familiar rule on that subject.

Affirmed.