alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

QUICKLOOK CRITERIA PARAMETERS

Report Request ID: 808998 Report Code: AMP450 Nov. 17, 2010

Selection Criteria Page 1

User ID: AGR

State County Site Parameter POC City AQCR UAR CBSA CSA

EPA

Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date

08 069 0012

GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS

Parameter

Classification Parameter Method Duration

44201

SELECTED OPTIONS

EVENTS PROCESSING

MERGE PDF FILES

WORKFILE DELIMITER

Option Type Option Value

EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS

YES

,

SORT ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Order Column

PARAMETER_CODE

STATE_CODE

COUNTY_CODE

SITE_ID

POC

DATES

EDT_ID

GLOBAL DATES

2009

Start Date End Date

2010

Tribal

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Standard Description

Ozone 1-hour Daily 2005

Ozone 8-Hour 2008
Nov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 1 of 5

EXCEPTIONAL DATA TYPES

EDT DESCRIPTION

0

1

2

5

NO EVENTS

EVENTS EXCLUDED

EVENTS INCLUDED

EVENTS WITH CONCURRENCE EXCLUDED
Nov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 2 of 5

Ozone (44201) Colorado Parts per million (007)

SITE ID

P

O

C PQAO CITY COUNTY ADDRESS YEAR METH

VALID

DAYS

MEAS

1ST

MAX

1-HR CERT EDT

08-069-0012

08-069-0012

1

1

0240

0240

Not in a city

Not in a city

Larimer

Larimer

11835 Rist 

Canyon Road

11835 Rist 

Canyon Road

2009

2010

087

087

140

213

.092

.088

.087

.085

0

5

2ND

MAX

1-HR

1-HOUR 

NUM

DAYS

REQ

214

214

.085

.084

3RD

MAX

1-HR

.077

.084

4TH

MAX

1-HR

DAY

MAX>/=

0.125

0

0

EST

DAYS>/=

.125

 0.0

 0.0

MISS

DAYS<

0.125

0

1
Nov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 3 of 5

Ozone (44201) Colorado Parts per million (007)

SITE ID

P

O

C PQAO CITY COUNTY ADDRESS YEAR METH

VALID

DAYS

MEAS

4TH

MAX

8-HR CERT EDT

08-069-0012

08-069-0012

1

1

0240

0240

Not in a city

Not in a city

Larimer

Larimer

11835 Rist 

Canyon Road

11835 Rist 

Canyon Road

2009

2010

087

087

.071

.074

.069

.072

0

5

8-HOUR 

NUM

DAYS

REQ

214

214

.069

.071

.069

.071

DAY

MAX >

0.075

0

0

138

212

%OBS

64

99

1ST

MAX

8-HR

2ND

MAX

8-HR

3RD

MAX

8-HR
Nov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 4 of 5

44201 087 INSTRUMENTAL ULTRA VIOLET ABSORPTION

PARAMETER

METHOD

CODE COLLECTION METHOD ANALYSIS METHOD

METHODS USED IN THIS REPORT
Nov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 5 of 5

PQAOS USED IN THIS REPORT

PQAO AGENCY DESCRIPTION

0240 Colorado Department of Public Health And Environment
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

I, Howard E. Ehler, certify that:

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard E. Ehler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Howard E. EhlerHoward E. EhlerChief Financial OfficerNovember 5, 2009
#### LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation authorized to do business in Florida, Appellant, v. CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation, f/k/a Reed Construction Company, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-57.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 7, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1967.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellant.

John F. Muckerman, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J„ and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Addison, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 877; Miller Elec. Co. of Fla. v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp., Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 40.
# Feb 2023
#### GINSEY INGRAM, widow of Samuel Ingram, *vs.*EDWARD MORRIS.

In a suit for dower, the plaintiff recovered against the purchaser under a judgment entered *the same day*with the marriage, there being no evidence which in fact was first, the marriage or the entry of judgment.

Summons in dower. Plea, that the land was sold on a judgment •against the husband, which was a lien thereon at the time of the marriage. Replication and issue.

It was admitted that Samuel Ingram was seized of an estate of inheritance in the premises at the time of the marriage. The judgment upon which the land was sold bore date on the same day of the marriage, and there was no evidence which, in point of time, preceded the other. Yet the title of the widow of Samuel Ingram to dower depended on this question; for if the judgment was a subsisting judgment at the time of the marriage, the sale of the land which was afterwards made in execution of that judgment discharged the land of dower; if the marriage took place before the judgment was entered, the wife’s right to dower attached and could not be divested by a judgment subsequently entered.

*Ridgely,*for plaintiff.

*Wootten,*for defendant.

*Ridgely,*for the claimant,

argued that the claim of dower was a favored claim; and, in the absence of evidence, the jury would imply in favor of dower. He showed that the judgment was entered on a bond, dated many months before, and argued that the delay of entering the judgment should be considered to the prejudice of the party claiming under it; that the burthen of proof was on the defendant, who pleaded an affirmative plea in derogation of this favored right. *(Jenkins’ Rep.*274; *Parke on Dower 2.)*

*Wootten,*contra,

argued from the fact of the entry of judgment on the day of the marriage, that the inference should be made that it was entered *before*the marriage, for the very purpose of binding the land so as to prevent the right of dower ; that the common usage of the country was, for marriage to take place in the evening, after the usual hour of doing business in the public offices; and that if the marriage and entry of judgment were at the same moment the wife would not be dowable, for his seizin otherwise than as subject to dower, would be only momentary. And such a seizin gives no right to dower. (1 *Johns. Dig.*518; 15 *Johns. Rep.*458.)

The jury rendered a verdict for the demandant.
#### DELL EWING v. D. P. KIRTLAND.1

January 7, 1916.

Nos. 19,481—(156).

Bill of particulars.

Where a complaint in an action for board and lodgings sets out the dates between which the same were furnished, the number of meals and the number of lodgings, and the value of each, the failure of plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars in response to a demand therefor, is not presumptively prejudicial to defendant, where such demand does not indicate what information, further than that given by the complaint, defendant desires.

Action in the district court for Kittson county to recover $245.45 for board and lodging furnished defendant. The case was tried before Grindeland, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $142 and interest. From the judgment entered upon the verdict, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*A. D. Bornemann,*for appellant.

P. *H. Eonzen,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 155 N. W. 617.

*9Per Curiam.

The complaint in this action alleged that between August 6, 1912, and August 23, 1914, plaintiff furnished to defendant at his special instance and request certain board and lodgings, namely, 482 meals and 185 nights’ lodgings, of the reasonable value of 35 cents each, no part of which has been paid. Defendant duly demanded a bill of particulars, which plaintiff failed to furnish. Defendant thereafter answered by general denial. At the trial defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence under the complaint for the failure of plaintiff to furnish the demanded bill of particulars. The demand for the bill of particulars was general, and indicated no particular information desired by defendant. A majority of the court are of opinion, and so hold, that since the complaint is full and specific, alleging the dates between which the meals and lodgings were furnished, together with the number of meals and lodgings, and the value of each, and defendant did not indicate in his demand what information further, than that given by the complaint he desired, he was not- presumptively prejudiced by the failure to furnish the bill of particulars.

Judgment affirmed.
Before the United States Department of Transportation

Washington, DC

December 14, 2010

Essential Air Service at

GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA Docket OST-2002-13983

under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et.seq.

This document contains Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.'s response to Order Requesting 

Proposals 2010-11-2.

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. is pleased to submit this proposal to provide essential

air transportation at Grand Island, Nebraska.

The proposal contemplates the use of 19 seat Beechcraft 1900D airliner equipment.

Questions and comments may be referred to:

Michael O. Matthews

Chief Financial Officer

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.

1022 Airport Parkway

Cheyenne, WY 82001

(307) 432-7000

Per the instructions in the Order, this proposal represents Great Lakes final and only proposal. 

The service patterns and schedule times are designed specifically to connect with our codeshare partners (Frontier and United Airlines), along with interline connections to other carriers 

serving our Denver hub. 
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.

Annual Compensation Requirements for Essential Air Service at

Grand Island, Nebraska

(at 98 percent completion)

Three Round Trips to Denver 

Departures: 1,840

Block Hours: 2,698

Revenue Passenger Miles: 5,074,000

Available Seat Miles: 12,026,240

Operating Revenues:

Passengers 14,750 psgrs at $132.98 $1,961,455

Other: (at 0.62% of passenger revenue) $12,161

Total Operating Revenues: $1,973,616

Operating Expenses:

Direct: Aircraft and Hull Insurance $338,710

Fuel and Oil $1,332,939

Flying Operations $459,038

Maintenance $627,753

Total Direct Expenses: $2,758,440

Total Indirect Expenses: $1,025,791

Total Operating Expenses: $3,784,231

Operating Loss ($1,810,615)

Profit Element (5.0% of Total Operating Expenses) $189,212

Annual Compensation Requirement: $1,999,827

 Representative Schedule

Flt # Freq Flow Schedule Time Equip

5154 123456 GRI-DEN 0800-0832 92 BE1

5180 12345 DEN-GRI 0958-1222 84 BE1

5180 12345 7 GRI-DEN 1232-1304 92 BE1

5183 1234567 DEN-GRI 1344-1608 84 BE1

5183 12345 7 GRI-DEN 1618-1650 92 BE1

5155 12345 7 DEN-GRI 2040-2304 84 BE1
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 214 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 62

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 214

                          [Report No. 103-163]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2520) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 29, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                  House Calendar No. 62
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 214

                          [Report No. 103-163]

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2520) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 1993

    Mr. Gordon, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2520) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That all points of order against consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2520) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1994, and for other purposes, are waived. During consideration of the 
bill, all points of order against the following provisions in the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived: 
beginning on page 4, line 22, through page 5, line 13; beginning on 
page 14, line 1, through ``construction'' on line 11; beginning on page 
54, line 1, through line 4; beginning on page 58, line 14, through line 
22; beginning on page 78, line 8, through page 80, line 10; beginning 
on page 85, line 15, through page 86, line 15; beginning on page 86, 
line 20, through page 87, line 3; and beginning on page 89, line 18, 
through line 21. Where points of order are waived against only part of 
a paragraph, a point of order against matter in the balance of the 
paragraph may be applied only within the balance of the paragraph and 
not against the entire paragraph.
```
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 326

To inform the Senate that a quorum of the House has assembled.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1994

Mr. WHITTEN submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To inform the Senate that a quorum of the House has

assembled.

1 Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the

2 Senate that a quorum of the House is present and that

3 the House is ready to proceed with business.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          50,652
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  831,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,644
<INVENTORY>                                     57,289
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,043,805
<PP&E>                                       9,389,388
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,398,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,810,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,345,453
<BONDS>                                      1,550,854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,167
<PREFERRED>                                     15,208
<COMMON>                                       978,351
<OTHER-SE>                                     279,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,810,365
<SALES>                                      1,519,209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,519,209
<CGS>                                          474,198
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  922,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                532,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                   197,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            344,538
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   334,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020247EN.01003301.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/33

---

Action brought on 26 May 2020 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO — Google (LOOP)

(Case T-305/20)

(2020/C 247/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU work mark LOOP — EU trade mark No 5 842 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 in Case R 281/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | pay the costs arising from the court proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the defendant and of the other parties before the Board of Appeal, should such other parties join the litigation. |
| --- | --- |

—

pay the costs arising from the court proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the defendant and of the other parties before the Board of Appeal, should such other parties join the litigation.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 41(2)(a) and (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 41(2)(a) and (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John A. WHITSELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54066.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: John A. Whitsell applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The records of our court of the appeal in this matter reflect that the state elected to prosecute one indictment with one count of rape. The double jeopardy allegation is without merit.
# C_2008320EN.01S00301.xml

| 16.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
#### Lewis Claude McKENNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 21, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record for Brow-ard County; M. Daniel Futch, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Nathaniel TALBOT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. *4,*1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                          45,819
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,206,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,249
<INVENTORY>                                  3,413,724
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,755,091
<PP&E>                                       4,742,236
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,146,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,494,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          712,224
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,299
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,494,110
<SALES>                                      2,392,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,392,171
<CGS>                                        1,519,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  594,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                274,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                   112,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   161,918
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
#### Glenn, *et*al., *v.*Case, *admx.*

*Appeal from Independence Circuit Court.*

Hon. Richard H. Powell, Circuit Judge.

"Watkins & Rose, for appellants.

WIassell & Moore, for appellee.

Wilshire, C. J.

The only question presented in this case is precisely the same as that determined in *William W. Glenn v. Sarah Case, admx., &c.,*decided at the present term. The decision in that case is the law of- this case.

Let the judgment be affirmed.