alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 1886

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign recipients.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Naval Vessels Transfer Act

of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. TRANSFERS BY GRANT.

The President is authorized to transfer vessels to foreign recipients on a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j), as follows:

(1) GREECE.—To the Government of Greece, the OSPREY

class minehunter coastal ship PELICAN (MHC–53).

(2) EGYPT.—To the Government of Egypt, the OSPREY

class minehunter coastal ships CARDINAL (MHC–60) and

RAVEN (MHC–61).

(3) PAKISTAN.—To the Government of Pakistan, the

SPRUANCE class destroyer ship FLETCHER (DD–992).

(4) TURKEY.—To the Government of Turkey, the

SPRUANCE class destroyer ship CUSHING (DD–985).

SEC. 3. TRANSFERS BY SALE.

The President is authorized to transfer vessels to foreign recipients on a sale basis under section 21 of the Arms Export Control

Act (22 U.S.C. 2761), as follows:

(1) INDIA.—To the Government of India, the AUSTIN class

amphibious transport dock ship TRENTON (LPD–14).

(2) GREECE.—To the Government of Greece, the OSPREY

class minehunter coastal ship HERON (MHC–52).

(3) TURKEY.—To the Government of Turkey, the

SPRUANCE class destroyer ship O’BANNON (DD–987).

SEC. 4. GRANTS NOT COUNTED IN ANNUAL TOTAL OF TRANSFERRED

EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.

The value of a vessel transferred to another country on a

grant basis pursuant to authority provided by section 2 shall not

be counted against the aggregate value of excess defense articles

transferred to countries in any fiscal year under section 516 of

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

SEC. 5. COSTS OF CERTAIN TRANSFERS.

Notwithstanding section 516(e)(1) of the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)(1)), any expense incurred by the
S. 1886—2

United States in connection with a transfer authorized under section

2 shall be charged to the recipient.

SEC. 6. REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT IN UNITED STATES SHIPYARDS.

To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall require,

as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under this section, that

the country to which the vessel is transferred have such repair

or refurbishment of the vessel as is needed before the vessel joins

the naval forces of that country be performed at a shipyard located

in the United States, including a United States Navy shipyard.

SEC. 7. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority to transfer a vessel under this section shall

expire at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of

the enactment of this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit21.1**

The following is a listof the Company’s current subsidiary, which is wholly owned:
| Subsidiary Name            | ** ** | ** **    | ** ** | **Organized Under The Laws Of** |
|----------------------------|------------|---------------|------------|---------------------------------|
|                       |       |          |
| Ezenia International, Inc. |       | Massachusetts |

 

The following aresubsidiaries of Ezenia International, Inc. all of which are wholly-owned:
| Subsidiary Name            | ** ** | ** **    | ** ** | **Organized Under The Laws Of** |
|----------------------------|------------|---------------|------------|---------------------------------|
|                       |       |          |
| Ezenia Latin America, Inc. |       | Massachusetts |

 

----
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

146°
Be

70°

THE U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

142°

ZZ

Mountains
ae

PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND

%
Shublik Mountain 2 <
69° o 2
re 69°
30" ie + 30"
Re Aa No) GE.
*
Third Range &
4
eS s
Fy
2 | SES} |
146° 145° 144° 143° 142°
A. Tundra swan
46° 145° 144° 143° 142°

70°

146°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:250,000;
Barter Island, Demarcation Point, and

Flaxman Island, 1956. Limited revision 1983,

Mt Michelson, 1966. Limited revision 1983

“145°

144°

143°
C. Shorebird and passerine nesting and staging areas

MAPS OF BIRD RESOURCES IN THE 1002 AREA, ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, ALASKA

1987

142°

AR,
CN
Akutoktag

Mountains

Third Range
Okpilok
© Lake

ll
144°

B. Geese and black brant

Old Man Creel

KIC Lands

ws

¥ao¥o124O

\
4

142° 144°
D. Cliff-nesting raptors and ravens
EXPLANATION OF FULL-LEASING DATA
SCALE 1:500 000 aris (Data from figure V-1, this pee vi
‘ossible facilities ‘Os le facilities
re 2 2. 2 a8 ue cee Central production facility + Aitstrip—30 or 130 acres
a 90 acres Haul road
i — = = by be ag > re Oo 40 acres —--—..— Connecting road
Drill pad A Seawater-treatment plant
° 23 acres ° Port facility
—t——-— Pipeline B Assessment block discussed in text

Compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1002 AREA
PEATE, 3)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-01562]


Lithonia Lighting, Conyers, GA; Notice of Revised Determination 
on Reconsideration

    On July 31, 1997, the Department, issued a Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration regarding the 
petition for workers of the subject firm.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
issued on April 1, 1997, because criteria (3) and (4) of paragraph 
(a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were not 
met. There was no shift of production from the Conyers, Georgia plant 
to Canada or Mexico, nor did Lithonia Lighting import ``M'' and 
industrial fluorescent lighting fixtures. The layoffs were attributable 
to the transfer of production to another domestic facility.
    New information received by the Department shows that work 
performed by the employees at the subject plant was not limited to the 
production of ``M'' and industrial fluorescent lighting fixtures. The 
workers at the Conyers plant were engaged in employment related to the 
production of fluorescent lighting fixtures.
    New findings on reconsideration reveal that company imports of 
fluorescent lighting fixtures from Mexico and Canada increased from 
1995 to 1996, and in the first six months of 1997 compared to the first 
six months of 1996.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles from 
Canada and Mexico like or directly competitive with fluorescent 
lighting fixtures contributed importantly to the declines in sales or 
production and to the total or partial separation of workers of 
Lithonia Lighting, Conyers, Georgia. In accordance with the provisions 
of the Act, I make the following certification:

    All workers of Lithonia Lighting, Conyers, Georgia, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 13, 
1996, are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 21st day of August 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-23704 Filed 9-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**EXHIBIT 18.1**

September 9, 2008 

LeCroy Corporation 

150Chestnut Ridge Rd. 

Chestnut Ridge, NY 10799 

Ladies andGentlemen: 

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of LeCroy Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as ofJune 28, 2008 and June 30, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years ended June 28, 2008, June 30, 2007, and July 1, 2006 and have reportedthereon under date of September 9, 2008. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 28, 2008. As stated in Note 1to those financial statements, the Company changed its annual goodwill impairment testing date from fiscal year-end to the last day of the eleventh month of the fiscal year and states that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in thecircumstances because it provides the Company additional time to complete the impairment test and report the results of that test in the Company’s annual filing on Form 10-K. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed withCompany officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based. 

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method. However,for purposes of the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter. 

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company’s circumstances. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ KPMG LLP
### Ground-water exploration in Al Marj area, Cyrenaica, United Kingdom of Libya

By: T.G. NewportYousef Haddor

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1757A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (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.
Helping People Help the Land

Factsheet:

Gulf of Mexico Initiative 

The Gulf of Mexico 

Initiative (GoMI)

Background/Purpose

The Gulf of Mexico Initiative (GoMI) 

provides focused technical and 

financial assistance to agricultural 

producers to improve ecosystem 

health in the Gulf of Mexico and its 

associated watersheds.

GoMI complements the existing 

Mississippi River Basin Healthy 

Watersheds Intiative (MRBI), which 

addresses similiar concerns in the 

Mississippi River Basin, by working on 

smaller watersheds that drain directly 

into the Gulf of Mexico.

The conservation programs utilized to 

support the goals and objectives of the 

GoMI are the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP), 

Conservation Stewardship Program 

(CSP), Wetlands Reserve Program 

(WRP), Grasslands Reserve Program 

(GRP), and the Farm and Ranch 

Lands Protection Program (FRPP). 

Goals/Objectives

Through this initiative, NRCS and its 

partners assist agricultural producers 

and cooperators in improving water 

quality, increasing water conservation 

and enhancing wildlife habitat within 

watersheds draining into the Gulf of 

Mexico.

Expected Outcomes

The outcomes to be measured for the 

GoMI are reductions in nitrogen, 

phosphorous and sediment that 

contribute to water quality concerns in 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

Priorities

Working in conjunction with state and 

federal agencies, local partners and 

producers, NRCS selected 16 priority 

watersheds in seven major river 

basins that have the opportunity to 

build upon existing conservation 

efforts.

The seven river basins identified 

include Weeks Bay in Alabama, the 

Escambia River in Alabama and 

Florida, the middle Suwannee River 

area in Florida, the BaratariaTerrebonne National Estuary and 

Mermentau Basin in Louisiana, the 

Jourdan River in Mississippi, and the 

Lower San Antonio River in Texas.

Eligibility

Participants in the GoMI must meet 

eligibility requirements for NRCS 

conservation programs.

Additionally, the land must fall in an

identified priority watershed draining into 

the Gulf of Mexico.

More Information

For more information and updates about 

the Gulf of Mexico Initiative and other 

NRCS conservation efforts, please visit the 

NRCS website at: www.nrcs.usda.gov.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6112

FRANK DOUGLAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART CORPORATION PHARMACY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.

(CA-01-116-1)

Submitted: May 15, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. John Robert Murphy, MURPHY &

GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Frank Douglas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and

granting summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on his 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

November 2, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on

January 4, 2002.* Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal

period, we grant Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.5
 KPMG LLP
    
    Telephone
    
    (403) 691-8000Charter Accountants
    
    Fax
    
    (403) 691-80082700 205  5th Avenue SW
    
    Internet
    
    www.kpmg.caCalgary, AB T2P 4B9
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   
    
    our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 25, 2010 on
the consolidated balance sheets of Agrium Inc. (the Company) as at December 31, 2009 and
2008, and the consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and comprehensive income and
shareholders equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009
 
    
    our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 25, 2010 on
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009
 
    
    our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 25, 2010 on
the supplemental information entitled Reconciliation with United States Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 of the Corporation
 
    
    our Comments by Auditors for US Readers on Canada  U.S. Reporting Differences, dated
February 25, 2010
   Signed KPMG LLP
### Geochemistry of water in aquifers and confining units of the Northern Great Plains in parts of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming

By: J.F. BusbyB. A. KimballJ. S. DowneyK. D. Peter

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1402F

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (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.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 

23, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00407-CR

IN RE JACK TERRILL, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

183rd District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1605125 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On May 15, 2019, relator Jack Terrill filed a petition for writ of mandamus in 

this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the 

petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Chuck Silverman, presiding 
2

judge of the 183rd District Court of Harris County, to dismiss relator’s indictment 

because his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated.

Relator states that he filed a motion for a speedy trial in the trial court, 

demanded that he be brought to trial, and objected to a continuance of his case, but 

the trial court failed to act upon relator’s requests. Relator has court-appointed 

representation. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, and the 

trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions filed by a defendant who is 

represented by counsel. Jenkins v. State, No. PD-0086-18, 2018 WL 6332219, at*6 

n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2018); Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 222 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007). In the absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator has not 

presented anything for this court’s consideration. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 

481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Turner v. State, 805 S.W.3d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). 

Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, 

we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                                  MAXIS, INC.
 
             STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          FISCAL YEARS ENDED
                                                              MARCH 31,
                                                        -----------------------
                                                         1997     1996    1995
                                                        -------  ------- ------
<S>                                                     <C>      <C>     <C>
Net income (loss)...................................... $(1,675) $ 6,188 $3,606
                                                        =======  ======= ======
Computations of weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding...........  11,180    8,390  5,804
  Common equivalent shares from stock options issued
   during the twelve-month period prior to the
   Company's initial public offering...................     --       --     993
Common equivalent shares attributable to:
  Redeemable preferred stock (if-converted method).....     --     2,094  2,109
  Stock options (treasury stock method)................     --       567      9
                                                        -------  ------- ------
Shares used in computing net income (loss) per share...  11,180   11,051  8,915
                                                        =======  ======= ======
Net income (loss) per share............................ $ (0.15) $  0.56 $ 0.40
                                                        =======  ======= ======
</TABLE>