alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Salinity of the Delaware Estuary

By: Bernard CohenLeo T. McCarthy Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1586B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Salinity studies on estuaries of the Eastern Shore of Maryland(1954)                                    

                                        Salinity investigations in the Delaware River estuary(1956)                                    

                                        Salinity of water in the Delaware Estuary(1957)                                    

- 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.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jim Willie GARY.

No. 61670.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Jim Willie Gary applying for writ of review and certiorari. Parish of East Carroll.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by review in the event of conviction.
#### Elizabeth MARKHAM v. Ronald MARKHAM.

No. 38829.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 759.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 23, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00559

- CV

Venkateswar Rao KODATI,

Appellant

v.

Nagalatha VINNAKOTA,

Appelle e

From the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 02059

Honorable Angelica Jimenez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On December 22, 2020, the district clerk responsible for preparation of the clerk’s record

filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s fee has not been paid. On December 23,

2020, we issued a memorandum opinion and judgment in this appeal granting appellant’s motion

to dismiss the appeal. According ly, we DENY AS MOOT the district clerk’s notification of late

record.

It is so ORDERED December 2 3 , 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ERIC ERNST, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNION COUNTY CONSERVATION 

DISTRICT, 

 Defendant. 

 No. 4:21-CV-01702 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

 

ORDER 

JUNE 10, 2022 

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of the 

Complaint (Doc. 9) is DENIED. Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12, the Defendants are directed to file an Answer by July 1, 2022. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:21-cv-01702-WIA Document 14 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25547]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3790-000]


Cinergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 22, 1997, Cinergy Services, Inc., 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before September 30, 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. 97-25547 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Martin W. HOULTIN, Robert Burke, Duane Morrison, Michael Francis, Kenneth B. Phillips, and Kenneth J. Croucher, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 74-4144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 1977.

Lee A. Chagra, El Paso, Tex., for Houltin, Burke, Morrison & Francis.

Malcolm McGregor, El Paso, Tex., for Croucher.

Bill Ravkind, Dallas, Tex. (Court-appointed), for Phillips.

William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., Jeremiah Handy, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this cause and remanded the cause “for reconsideration in light of the position presently asserted by the government”. That position is set forth in a memorandum of the Solicitor General, filed with the Supreme Court, in which he stated:

> After reviewing the facts of this case, we have concluded that the offense of conspiracy to import marijuana into this country does involve a compelling federal interest that is distinct from any interest vindicated by petitioners’ prior state convictions on the charge of simple possession of the drug. Accordingly, petitioners’ federal prosecution for conspiracy to import marijuana has been approved by the Attorney General pursuant to Departmental guidelines and there is thus no basis for disturbing their convictions on the importation count.

> We believe, however, that petitioners’ prosecution for conspiracy to possess marijuana was not supported by an independent compelling federal interest in light of the substantial similarity between that charge and the offense of which petitioners were convicted in state court. We therefore respectfully request the Court to permit the effectuation of this governmental policy by granting the petition, vacating the judgment of the court of appeals only as to the charge of conspiracy to possess marijuana (count two), and remanding the case to the district court with instructions to grant the government’s motion to dismiss that count. In all other respects the petition should be denied.

*992This Court has reconsidered the cause in light of the Solicitor General’s representation.

The judgment of this Court as to the charge of conspiracy to possess marijuana (count two) is withdrawn. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the government’s motion to dismiss that count. In all other respects this Court’s judgment and that of the district court are reaffirmed.
#### Daniel D. MORAN and Gregg S. Moran, his wife, Petitioners, v. Ruth E. STEPHENS, joined by her husband, Edward Stephens, Respondents.

No. 69-818.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 22, 1970.

Lake Lytal, Jr., of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Harry Lee Anstead, of Simpson & An-stead, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

It appears that the trial court acted within the limits of its discretion and in accord with law in its discovery rulings. Thus, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied upon authority of Lewis v. Moody, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 260. See also Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, Fla. 1967, 199 So.2d 97 and 27 A.L.R.3d 1375.

Certiorari denied.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., and MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge, concur.
### Request for exemption to FAA Rule 333

By Name: Kevin Wilson Address: 304 Otmoor Lane Cary, NC 27519 E - mail – wilsonkw2@gmail.com Phone: 919 - 656-7626 **I seek to utilize my UAS Drone (DJI Phantom 2 and 3 –**  **both less than 55 lbs. ) in my real estate**  **photography business for financial gain**  **. I will abide by the safe operation as follows:**

 Fly no more than 200 feet high  Maintain visual contact with the aircraft at all times  Fly only during daylight hours  Insure no people or pets are within flying radius  Maintain a safe distance (5 miles or more) from any airport and be vigilant for any maned craft that may be spotted  Maintain aircraft in accordance with DJI instruction By following the above safe operating guid elines/procedures I feel that I would not adversely affect the safety or others in the air or on the ground. I do **not** intend to utilize this exemption outside the United States and will most likely not exercise this exemption outside North Carolina. I have a working relationship with several real estate franchises in the Raleigh Cary area of NC, there is much interest in aerial photograph and feel that my drone photography business will be an asset to these real estate businesses.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES WATSON, :

:

Petitioner :

: CIVIL NO. 4:09-CV-2321

:

v. : Hon. John E. Jones III

 :

:

COMMONWEALTH OF :

PENNSYLVANIA, et al., :

:

Respondents :

MEMORANDUM

 March 2, 2010

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:

Petitioner James Watson (“Petitioner” or “Watson”), an inmate presently

confined at the Albion State Correctional Institution (“SCI-Albion”) in Albion,

Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In accordance with United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), and

Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), on February 22, 2010, the Court

issued a formal notice to Watson that he could either have his Petition ruled on as

filed, or withdraw his Petition and file one all-inclusive § 2254 petition within the

Case 4:09-cv-02321-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2
one-year statutory period prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act (“AEDPA”). (Doc. 4.) 

On March 1, 2010, Watson filed a Notice of Election indicating that he chooses

to withdraw his Petition as filed so that he may file one, all-inclusive petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 within the one-year limit for filing such a petition. (See Doc. 5.) This

Court’s February 22, 2010 Order stated that “[i]f Petitioner decides to file an allinclusive § 2254 petition raising all grounds for relief, Petitioner’s Notice of Election

form must also be accompanied by his new § 2254 petition. If the new § 2254 petition

does not accompany the Notice of Election, the Court will dismiss this case without

prejudice.” (See Doc. 4 ¶ 3.) Because a new § 2254 petition did not accompany

Watson’s Notice of Election, his Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

3) will be granted for the sole purpose of filing the Petition, and the Petition (Doc. 1)

will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order will enter.

2

Case 4:09-cv-02321-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1






                                    EXHIBIT 4













                                       65

<PAGE>   2


                                                                   EXHIBIT 4

<TABLE>
<S>                 <C>                <C>                                           <C>                          <C>
    NUMBER           COMMON STOCK                                                    COMMON STOCK              [SHARES]
     [MA]           par value $1.00


                                                MEDICAL ASSURANCE, INC.                                    CUSIP 58449U 10 0
                                 Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware            see reverse for certain definitions


                                  THIS CERTIFIES THAT

[LOGO]

                                   IS THE OWNER OF

                                           Fully-paid and non-assessable shares of the Common Stock of 
                                                            MEDICAL ASSURANCE, INC.

                                    transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly
                                    authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate is
                                    not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

                                       Witness the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.


        MEDICAL(R)                               Dated:                             Countersigned and Registered:
[LOGO]  ASSURANCE                                                                           CHASEMELLON SHAREHOLDER SERVICES, L.L.C.
------------------------    [SEAL]
 MEDICAL ASSURANCE, INC.                                                                                Transfer Agent and Registrar


                                                /s/             /s/                 By
                                                SECRETARY       PRESIDENT                                       Authorized Signature
</TABLE>


                                       66
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2793 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2793

   To reauthorize Long Island Sound programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2023

   Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. 
   Schumer) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reauthorize Long Island Sound programs, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Long Island Sound Restoration and 
Stewardship Reauthorization Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND PROGRAMS.

    (a) Long Island Sound Grants.--Section 119(h) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1269(h)) is amended by striking ``2019 
through 2023'' and inserting ``2024 through 2028''.
    (b) Long Island Sound Stewardship Grants.--Section 11(a) of the 
Long Island Sound Stewardship Act of 2006 (33 U.S.C. 1269 note; Public 
Law 109-359) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
striking ``2019 through 2023'' and inserting ``2024 through 2028''.
    (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 119(g) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1269(g)) is amended by redesignating 
paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
                                 <all>
```
u.s. 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Wash ington. D.C. 20240 ~ In Reply Refer To: 

FWS/ AES/DER/BCH/055057 

2013-F-0004 

Mr. Robert K Wood, Director 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, District of Columbia 20460 

JUL 1 2 2013 

Subject: Request for Initiation of Formal Consultation on Environmental ProtectiOn Agency's 

Final Regulation to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at 

Existing Facilities and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities 

Dear Mr. Wood: 

This letter acknowledges our receipt of your June 18, 2013, letter requesting initiation of formal 

section 7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. l536(a)(2)). The consultation will address the possible effects of the Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) final regulation to implement Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act 

on federally threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats. 

Your initiation request states that while EPA believes the rulemaking will not cause adverse 

effects to listed species, EPA is still requesting formal consultation to ensure full and expeditious 

consideration of impacts to listed species under Section 7(a)(2) ofthe ESA. We expect to 

conclude consultation with your agency on October 31,2013, unless we mutually agree upon an 

extension of the deadline. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff. If you have any questions or concerns 

about this consultation or the consultation process in general, please feel free to contact Drew 

Crane (703-358-2409; Drew Crane(cl{fws.gov) or Patrice Ashfieid (703-358-2478; 

Patrice Ashfield@fws.gov). 

Sincerely, 

{ G{)/,._., ~ Richard E. Sayers, Jr., Ph.D. 

Chief, Division of Environmental Review 

TAKE PRJ &f=: ~ 

IN MERICA~
Denied and Opinion Filed November 26, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01346-CV 

IN RE JULES DYLAN STUER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-05507 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains of a 

contempt order rendered against him for failure to pay amicus fees. To be entitled to mandamus 

relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator 

has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) 

(orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court 

with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 

827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to 

provide “a certified or sworn copy” of certain documents, including any order complained of, any 

other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that is material to the 

relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). 
 –2– 

Here, the mandamus record does not include a certified or sworn copy of the order 

complained of, all pleadings related to that order, or a hearing transcript. TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is 

entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not 

entitled to the relief sought). 

181346F.P05 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
#### Mastomarino et al., Appellants, *v.*Pennsylvania Fireworks Display Co.

Submitted November 20, 1933.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*Harold D. Greenwell,*and with him *Otto Krms, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Ralph H. Behney,*Counsel for State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, and with him *A. L. Edwards,*Deputy Attorney General, and Ifm. *A. Schnader,*Attorney General, for appellees.

December 16, 1933:

Per Curiam,

It was stipulated !by the parties that the same judgment should be entered in this case as was entered in the appeal of John Salamone against the same defendants to No. 77, October Term, 1933 (111 Pa. Superior Ct. 220).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Consent of Independent Auditors











	Exhibit 10b



	CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
      INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



	We consent to the reference to our
firm under the caption “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectus and
to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment Number 30 to
the Registration Statement (Form N-1A) (No. 333-32242) of Mercury Select Growth
Fund of Mercury Funds, Inc. of our report dated November 8, 1999, included in
the 1999 annual report to shareholders of the Turner Large Cap Growth Equity
Fund.



	/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

January 24, 2002
#### Winston C. BABER v. Peggy Jean Sharp Chappuis BABER.

No. 61760.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Winston C. Baber applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 354 So.2d 699.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2412]


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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 13, 1996, applicable to 
all workers of Bausch & Lomb, Eyewear Division located in Oakland, 
Maryland. The notice was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 
1996 (61 FR 14820).
    At the request of an official of HR Services, Inc., the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. Findings 
show that some employees of HR Services, Inc., Lima, Ohio, provided 
contract engineering services for the production of sunglass lenses 
produced by Bausch & Lomb in Oakland, Maryland. Based on these 
findings, the Department is amending the certification to include 
leased workers from HR Services, Inc., Lima, Ohio.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Bausch & Lomb Eyewear Division adversely affected by 
imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-31,911 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Bausch & Lomb, Eyewear Division, Oakland, 
Maryland; and leased workers of HR Services, Inc., Lima, Ohio, 
engaged in employment related to the production of sunglass lenses 
for Bausch & Lomb, Eyewear Division, Oakland, Maryland, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 
26, 1995, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 14th day of January 1997.
Russell T. Kile,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-2412 Filed 1-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M