alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Water resources of the Rochester area, New York

By: Irving G. GrossmanL.B. Yarger

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir246

#### 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.
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 NeoGenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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:
      October 29, 2010
              /s/Douglas M.
      VanOortDouglas
      M. VanOortChairman
      and Chief ExecutiveOfficerDate:
      October 29, 2010
              /s/George
      CardozaGeorge
      CardozaChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      October 29, 2010
              /s/Jerome J.
      DvonchJerome
      J. DvonchDirector
      of Finance and Principal AccountingOfficer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-820]


Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Extension of Time Limits of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limits for the preliminary results in the administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon from Brazil, covering the 
period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sal Tauhidi or Irene Darzenta, Office 
of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & 
Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4851 or (202) 482-6320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 24, 1997, the Department initiated 
the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ferrosilion 
from Brazil. The current time limits are December 1, 1997 for the 
preliminary results and April 2, 1998 for the final results. Because it 
is not practicable to complete this review within the original time 
limits as mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), the Department is 
extending the time limits for the preliminary results to January 12, 
1997. (See Memorandum to Robert S. LaRussa, Postponement of Preliminary 
Results of the Administrative Review on Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 
September 2, 1997.) Accordingly, we will issue the final results within 
120 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results.
    These extensions are in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

    Dated: September 8, 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-24277 Filed 9-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE PEPSI
BOTTLING GROUP, INC. CONDENSED  COMBINED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE 12 WEEKS
ENDED MARCH 20, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001076405
<NAME>                        THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-20-1999
<CASH>                                         14
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  870
<ALLOWANCES>                                   49
<INVENTORY>                                    312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,337
<PP&E>                                         4,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,005
<BONDS>                                        3,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (227)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,414
<SALES>                                        1,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,452
<CGS>                                          835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)
        


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6812** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. LAMONT ANTWON SANDERS, a/k/a Twon , Defendant

- Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00087

- JFM

- 1 )

Submitted : November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam o pinion
.
Lamont Antwon Sanders , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Leotta, John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lamont Antwon Sanders appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to correct the record. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Sanders , No. 1:0 6

- cr - 00087

- JFM

- 1 (D. Md. May 19, 2010) . 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
#### Willie CARROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1924.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 10, 1969.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s sole point on appeal is that the state failed to lay a sufficient predicate for the introduction of his confession. We have carefully reviewed the record and find that this contention is entirely without merit.

Defendant was advised of his rights and understandingly waived them. He was not intimidated, coerced or induced to confess.

The state met its burden and we conclude the defendant’s confession was voluntarily given. See Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 188 So.2d 320; Reddish v. State, Fla. 1964, 167 So.2d 858.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
PROMISSORY NOTE



PROMISSORY NOTE

U.S. $8,800,000Dated: December 18, 2001

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Jacqueline M. Swaisland (herein called "Swaisland") of, 2949 Palmerston Avenue, West Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V7V 2X2, promises to pay to A. Richard Bullock (herein called "Bullock") of, 19 Ferguson Drive, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT4 2AZ, or any subsequent holder of this promissory note, the principal amount of Eight Million Eight Hundred Thousand ($8,800,000) Dollars of lawful money of the United States, in accordance with the following:




	Principal amount - The principal amount of this Promissory Note is U.S. $8,800,000.


	Interest - There is no interest bearing on the principal amount outstanding on this Promissory Note.


	Payment - The principal amount shall be payable by one-half of the net after -tax proceeds from the sale of Sun Power Corporation shares purchased from A. Richard Bullock pursuant to an agreement date December 18, 2001, and the remainder, if any, shall be paid on the date that is ten years plus one day from the date of the Share Purchase Agreement between Swaisland and Bullock, being December 19, 2011.


	Assignment - This Promissory Note is assignable by Bullock with prior written notice of such assignment to Swaisland at the address of Swaisland given above.


	Payment - The payment of any amounts due under this Promissory Note shall be made in such places as agreed to by Swaisland and Bullock, and failing such agreement, at the address of Bullock given above from time to time by Bullock to Swaisland.


	Governing Law - This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Province of British Columbia.





/s/ Jacqueline M. Swaisland



JACQUELINE M. SWAISLAND
#### Raymond A. WRIGHT v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50072.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 21, 1977.

Herbert W. Wilson, Gulfport, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ., and JOHN C. LOVE, Commissioner.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Leslie B. Grant, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas POTTER, Appellant, v. HOWARD HALL COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

No. 76-1984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 28, 1978.

Feldman & Abramson, Miami, for appellant.

Williams, Tomlinson & duFresne, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, petitioner below, brings this appeal from a final judgment, in a workman’s compensation case, denying his petition for a rule nisi. In its final judgment, the trial court held that it had no jurisdiction to enforce the administrative order awarding appellant temporary total compensation payments.

Based on the authority of *Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Merritt,*160 So.2d 552 (Fla.2d DCA 1964), and Section 440.24, Florida Statutes (1975), the trial court should have granted appellant’s petition for a rule nisi. See also *McCormick v. Messink,*208 So.2d 113 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Therefore, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
#### CITY OF MIAMI v. Willie SHINHOLSTER.

No. 39169.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So.2d 364.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of the Company

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                       State of
Name of Subsidiary                                     Incorporation
------------------                                     -------------
<S>                                                    <C>
Source-Yeager Industries, Inc.                         Delaware
Source-US Marketing Services, Inc.                     Delaware
Brand Manufacturing Corp.                              New York
TCE Corporation                                        Delaware
Vail Companies, Inc.                                   Delaware
Source-MYCO, Inc.                                      Delaware
Source-Chestnut Display Systems, Inc.                  Delaware
Source-Huck Store Fixture Company                      Delaware
Source Interlink International, Inc                    Delaware
The Source-Canada Corp.                                Ontario
Source Interlink Canada Inc.                           British Columbia
Huck Store Fixture Company of North Carolina           North Carolina
The Interlink Companies, Inc.                          Delaware
David E. Young, Inc.                                   New York
International Periodical Distribution, Inc.            Nevada
</Table>
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman First Class MICHAEL A. HABBE

United States Air Force

ACM 38562

31 March 2015

Sentence adjudged 29 January 2014 by GCM convened at McConnell Air 

Force Base, Kansas. Military Judge: Joshua E. Kastenberg (on 

arraignment) and Matthew S. Ward (on trial) (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months,

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Lauren A. Shure.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Major Daniel J. Breen; Captain 

Thomas J. Alford, and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ALLRED, HECKER, and TELLER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 01, 2011

Mr. Thomas R. Phillips

Baker Botts L.L.P.

98 San Jacinto Center, Suite 1500

Austin, TX 78701

Ms. Deborah G. Hankinson

Hankinson Levinger LLP

750 N. St. Paul St., Suite 1800

Dallas, TX 75201

Ms. Melissa J.  Armstrong

Baker Botts L.L.P.

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600

Dallas, TX 75201

RE:Case Number:  08-0244

Court of Appeals Number:  05-04-01358-CV

Trial Court Number:  03-00675

Style:BASIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY INVESTORS, INC., CONTINENTAL POYDRAS CORP., CONTINENTAL COMMON, INC., AND CONTINENTAL BARONNE, INC.

v.

DYNEX COMMERCIAL, INC. AND DYNEX CAPITAL, INC.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@txcourts.gov or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  The Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for Review is dismissed as moot. 

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 08-0244Page 2**
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, David R. Dowsett, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of The Med-DesignCorporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, Amendment No. 1, does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report;     3. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Designed with such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;          c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 30, 2006  DAVID R. DOWSETTDavid R. DowsettActing Chief Executive Officer
WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1230 PLATE 6

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

EXPLANATION

4 feet

Zz

Water 2 to

)

|

y

i

K\

\

aL
\\ ‘

\

\\
a As

VA i
BARS
Aa S//

Based from map prepared by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1919

(© -54 (In pocket) No, 6

MAP OF MESILLA VALLEY. NEW MEXICO, SHOWING WATER-TABLE CONTOURS AND DEPTH TO WATER IN SUMMER OF 1919 AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF A PART OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRENDA PERRIN, : Case No. 13-CV-02946

ON BEHALF OF J.P., :

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

: (Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson)

THE WARRIOR RUN :

SCHOOL DISTRICT, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

November 4, 2015

The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the

September 16, 2015 Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge

Martin C. Carlson (ECF No. 44) regarding Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on

the Administrative Record (ECF No. 38) and Plaintiff’s cross Motion for Judgment

on the Administrative Record (docketed as “Motion for Summary Judgment”)

(ECF No. 40). No objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and

Recommendation were filed by either party.

The Court has reviewed the R&R only to detect clear non-conformance with

well-established law. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)

(although the Court is not required to review magistrate judge’s report absent

Case 4:13-cv-02946-MWB Document 45 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 2
objections, “the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of

review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report”). This Court agrees with

Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s recommendations and will not rehash the

reasoning of the Chief Magistrate Judge. Therefore, this Court will adopt the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation is

ADOPTED in full. September 16, 2015 ECF No. 44.

2. Defendant The Warrior Run School District’s Motion for Judgment

on the Administrative Record is GRANTED in its entirety. October

31, 2014 ECF No. 38.

3. Plaintiff’s cross Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record

(docketed as “Motion for Summary Judgement”) is DENIED. October

31, 2014 ECF No. 40. 

4. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgement in favor of Defendant

and against Plaintiff and to close the case file.

BY THE COURT: 

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-02946-MWB Document 45 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 2