alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# UST Technical Compendium Category 3: Release

Detection (RD)
http://epa.gov/oust/compend/rd.htm

Question 21: If a facility is using statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR) monthly and a report is not conclusive, is the owner/operator out of compliance?

Answer: Yes, an UST system relying on monthly SIR with a report that does not conclusively indicate whether the system is leaking at 0.2 gallons per hour with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05 is not technically compliance with the release detection requirements. A lack of conclusive results may not be possible on a smal l percentage of tank data each month, for several reasons. Because of this, EPA encourages States and Regions to use discretion, and to consider the efforts of owners and operators to comply in assessing whether or not enforcement is carried out. [ November 18, 1993 memorandum to State and Regional Program Managers (PDF) (2 pp, 11K)] [ February 7, 1994 letter to Mr. Hunt (PDF) (3pp, 14K) ]
#### Olive CREEL, Appellant, v. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., Appellee.

No. 69-513.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 6, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 588 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 588

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 25 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 20 South Main in Beaver, Utah, as the ``Abe Murdock United States 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20 
South Main in Beaver, Utah, is designated as the ``Abe Murdock United 
States Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the facility referred to in section 
1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Abe Murdock United States Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12522]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of 
the inventions listed below, assigned to the United States Government, 
as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, for domestic and foreign 
licensing by the Department of the Navy.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the patent applications cited should 
be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div., Code OOL, 
Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div., Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, 
IN 47522-5001, Email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aae9c2d8c3d9dec5dac2cfd884e7c5c4d9cfd3eac4cbdcd384c7c3c6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="23604b514a50574c534b46510d6e4c4d50465a634d42555a0d4e4a4f">[email protected]</span></a>, 812-854-2777.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following patent application is 
available for licensing: Patent Application No. 14/953,315 (Navy Case 
No. 200226): Optimized Subsonic Projectiles and Related Methods.

    Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: June 5, 2018.
E.K. Baldini,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-12522 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-K
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         461,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      10,048,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      13,882,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        13,921,000
<LOANS>                                    178,414,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,624,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             212,504,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 128,771,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                35,250,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,816,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,637,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             212,504,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             14,535,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              975,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               479,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            15,989,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,583,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,179,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        7,810,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  285,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,670,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,074,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   4,074,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,510,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.34
<LOANS-NON>                                    262,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   796,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              9,574,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,353,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   14,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,624,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,624,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Otis James WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1973.

*71James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of two separate offenses: (1) assault with intent to commit robbery, Section 784.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and, (2) using a firearm in the commission of a felony, Section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. This appeal was timely filed.

We have reviewed the record and read the briefs submitted by counsel for the parties. After due consideration, we find that the grounds relied on by appellant for reversal of the judgment and sentences are without merit. On the contrary, we submit that the record does show that the case was fairly and impartially tried and the verdict of the jury, adverse to appellant, is amply supported by competent evidence.

The matter that does concern us, but is not raised in the briefs filed herein, is that the trial judge imposed separate, concurrent sentences upon appellant: (1) for the offense of assault with intent to commit robbery, six months to ten years, (2) for the offense of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, six months to ten years.

On the authority of the decision of our supreme court in Cone v. State, Fla.1973, (Case No. 42,760, opinion filed March 7, 1973, not yet reported). We have no alternative as we interpret the decision therein but to remand this case to the trial court with directions to impose one sentence only.

It is so directed and ordered.

MANN, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         936,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,036,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,540,762
<PP&E>                                      66,403,748
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,302,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,568,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,106,206
<BONDS>                                     40,219,938
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,630,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                56,568,977
<SALES>                                      9,711,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,878,579
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,072,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,752,086
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,090,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (586,149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (586,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (586,149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Eugene Raymond PLATANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-45.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 4, 1973.

Robert A. Harper, Jr., Gainesville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Downey Financial Corp. ("Downey") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel D.
Rosenthal, Chief Executive Officer of Downey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)    The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13 (a) 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 Downey.



| | /s/ Daniel D.
  Rosenthal                  
| | -------------------------------------------
| |                                            
| | Date: March 1, 2005                        
| | President and Chief Executive
      Officer
|

| | Page | Navigation Links
| | ---- | ----------------

Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Downey Financial Corp. ("Downey") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas E. Prince,
Chief Financial Officer of Downey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)    The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13 (a) 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 Downey.



| | /s/ Thomas E. Prince                                     
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                          
| | Date: March 1, 2005                                      
| | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer
|

| | Page | Navigation
Links
| | ---- | ----------------
No. 10313.

#### McDonald et al. *v.*The Lake Erie, Alliance & Wheeling Railroad Co.

Decided May 5, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Jefferson county.-

*Mr. Henry Gregg; Mr. J. C. Bigger*and *Mr. Dio Rogers,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Garfield, Howe & Westenhaver*and *Mr. E.- L. Finley,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck and Summers, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Michael T. Vesey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act oF 2002, that:

                  1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; 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:    May 12, 2005

                                          Michael T. Vesey
                                          ----------------
                                          Michael T. Vesey
                                          President and Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 11

                             FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.
	      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                      MARCH 31,              MARCH 31,
                                   2004        2003         2004       2003

Income before cumulative
 effect of accounting change   $24,497,000  16,300,000  $56,625,000  28,696,000

Cumulative effect of accounting
 Change                                  -           -            -     333,000

Net income                     $24,497,000  16,300,000  $56,625,000  29,029,000

Common shares:

Weighted average shares
 outstanding during the
 period - used for basic
 earnings per share             43,176,461  42,907,812   43,131,504  42,891,804

Shares issuable under
 stock options which are
 potentially dilutive              865,931     600,410      870,868     651,830

Shares used for diluted
 earnings per share             44,042,392  43,508,222   44,002,372  43,543,634

Earnings per share:
 Basic
  Income before cumulative
   effect of accounting change        $.57        .38         $1.31        .67
  Cumulative effect of
   accounting change                     -          -             -        .01

 Net income                           $.57        .38         $1.31        .68

 Diluted
  Income before cumulative
   effect of accounting change        $.56        .37         $1.29        .66
  Cumulative effect of accounting
   change                                -          -             -        .01

 Net income                           $.56        .37         $1.29        .67


1
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 9 97 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 - CE - 0 44 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### Edward MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee, v. Jacsey HOLDEN, Jr. and Stanley J. Smith, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

No. 3607.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 22, 1971.

Plauche, Sanders, Smith & Hebert by-Thomas W. Sanders, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants, appellees.

John G. Poteet, Jr., Lafayette, for plam-ti f f-appellant-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER, and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is a companion suit to Ned v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, 254 So. 2d 145 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1971). The pertinent facts are set out in that decision. The only issue in this appeal is whether the *148award on behalf of Edward Moore was excessive.1 We affirm.

Plaintiff suffered a contusion of the temporal and parietal area of the skull, a laceration above the left ear, which became infected and developed cellulitis, a rather severe cervical strain, and an injury to the shoulder which was subsequently diagnosed as traumatic bursitis; and a contusion or strain to the chest muscles. Plaintiff’s chest condition subsisted for approximately 1 and *'\/i*months, his shoulder continued through substantial pain for another 3 months; and his neck for at least 7 months, and at the time of the trial, approximately 21 months after the accident, he was still complaining of headaches related to the accident.

Plaintiff missed at least 5 weeks from his work and underwent medical treatments for at least 7 months and has been under considerable amounts of pain pills and shots and has been forced to wear a neck brace for at least 4 to 5 months, and during the same period of time had to undergo uncomfortable heat treatments for at least 7 months. At the time of the trial, he was still experiencing some difficulty with his injured areas.

Plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence for the jury to have found he had sustained at least $1,392.12 in special damage. The amount remaining of $2,798.88 for personal injuries could hardly be excessive in view of the evidence. The evidence overall indicates that the jury award combined with the addition by the judge was only adequate to compensate plaintiff for his injuries.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Appellant to pay all costs of this appeal.

Affirmed.

1

. In this case the jury awarded plaintiff $2,191, and the trial judge increased the amount by an additur of $2,000 in lieu of granting a new trial.