alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Jump to main content.

STORET/ WQX Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA
 

### You are here: EPA Home  

### Water  

### OWOW  

### AWPD  

### STORET/ WQX 

# Welcome to STORET and WQX, EPA's repository and framework for sharing water monitoring data. The STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval) Data Warehouse is a repositoryfor water quality, biological, and physical data and is used by state environmental agencies, EPA and other federal agencies, universities, privatecitizens, and many others. Take a minute to browse around our site or click onthe water drop to retrieve monitoring data!

About STORET/

WQX| Supportfor Data Owners | Obtaining Water Quality Data| Useful Links | Commonly Asked Questions

If you have a question or comments on this website or on the STORET system,

please call STORET User Assistance at 1 - 800 - 424 - 9067, or send us an email at STORET@epa.gov . [logo] US EPA

     Go

Get Data Features Download Data Watershed Summary WQX and WQX Web Fact Sheets STORET Web Services WQX Web Tutorial Videos Distributed STORET Archives 

### Page 1 of 2 | STORET| US EPA

11/19/2010 file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\5385534062765424899\ ...

## Local Navigation
 About STORET/ WQX  Datadownload  Online Tutorials  Data Submittal  Useful Internet Links  Support  Tools/ Web Services  Frequent Questions 
EPA Home | Privacy and SecurityNotice | Contact Us http://www.epa.gov/storet/ Print As - Is Last updated on Monday, November 02, 2009  Share

 Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  What is this? Jump to main content. 

### Page 2 of 2 | STORET| US EPA

11/19/2010 file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\5385534062765424899\ ...
#### Nancy A. REED, Appellant, v. JIM MORAN PONTIAC, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 1974.

Louis Glazer of Law Offices of Glazer & Glazer, North Miami, for appellant.

Edna L. Caruso of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Looking at the whole record and the inferences to be gained therefrom, it is our view that there were genuine issues as to material facts that stood in, the way of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rule 1.510 F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A., Marden v. Marden, 276 So.2d 493 (4th D.C.A.Fla. 1973); Playcare, Inc. v. Battaglia, 280 So. 2d 34 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973); Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So.2d 152 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973); American Bankers *Ins. Co.*of Florida v. Nolan’s Garage, Inc., 262 So.2d 727 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 149 So.2d 898 (2d D.C.A.Fla. 1963). More specifically there was an issue as to whether or not defendant’s conduct of its business caused the accumulation of pollutants upon the plaintiff’s premises.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and RUD-NICK, VAUGHN J., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Archiable James STRICKLAND, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent.

No. T-119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 1973.

Archiable James Strickland, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus denied.

See Remp v. State, 248 So.2d 677 (1 Fla. App. 1970).

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Harvey J. HODGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; Warren H. Edwards, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 
Mrah 15, 1939

Honorable

### Tom P. Coleman,Jr. cotio~ Attorney

, ~exaa Dear Sir;

You adriee that sub king of his aontrnat of smploymaat,

a su9erlnten aahool dirtriotha6 marrlwl ths dau@tsr or QXIB a ~60 of the sohool dl#tri6t. Itu ask our opinion 

# t%e Nepotism **Statute** that 940 atSiaor
. . . of say . . . SQh point, or vote Sot, or aonfirm the apps pcrmm relateaw rads as iollows;
erron **~~tmiba Qdthin**  the 11 **approve** any aaawnt or ng ot any mm-ant or order to or aampenmatioa **of suoh**  ineli~;ibLs kaowin@his to **bs EO**  **ineligible.*.** unable to find aad believe **there are**  **no 6esea**  termSa% thSe point under the rexa statuteo.‘Em- ‘ever,bearlne.

SD giind

the main purposa of tbo Nepotism Statute, ***e are**  **quite certain**  **that no**  **viol&&m oi**  **the** above statuteais ,here~ involved. The main purpose of suah stetutesis to romava the temptationto employ oloss reLatZwa, thus crlLabating~kin8hip to the employingor a,ppolntin.g parson@ and boarda a6 an element otHon. Tom F. CoLenn, tr., Marah 13, 19S9. Page 2,

tlompet1tion.Dthsrmlee,In tee; sany fasterncea

the positionof e~plopent vmula be awarded to a ne relativerather then to enother parron rjho l atuallypos8ee8

3 mora satirrfaotorlquallfiaatIons. N~edlssa to cay the publicwould suiier.

Ii~ra

the eqilopmt UIM **made** at a tim *hen the relattoa8hip did not exi8t nnd thereforedid not inauae or oontributeto induolxq tba eaplooyrsot.

Artlole 4% rcrfrr8 to Artlole 432, arid**forbid8 paying**  up lnslielble otfioor **or pereon.** 

The Wqmri~teZlden~ ir not inell(lfblO under Artiole 438, and thereCore

Artdie 438 door not forbid p8rin5 him. The **abwe ~ueatloa**  in anmrod in the negatlr.. Tours very truly A’PTOBRIclt

UfSlUtAL OP TEXA6
JP Sanchez Construction, s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 24, 2015

No. 04-15-00537-CV

Joshua KALINCHUK,

Appellant

v.

JP SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION, CO.,

Appellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30733

Honorable Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed with this court on November 12, 2015. This court 

granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file his brief until December 3, 2015. 

On November 23, 2015, Appellant filed an unopposed second motion for extension of time to 

file his brief until January 15, 2016, for a total extension of sixty-four days. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed with this court not 

later than January 15, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). 

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL 

BE GRANTED. If Appellant fails to file his brief as ordered, the court may dismiss this appeal 

for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John L. BOLING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3823.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 10, 1972.

*157Mitchel M. Evans, DeRidder, for defendant-appellant.

Vincent Hazelton, Alexandria, for plaintiffs-appelleés.

Before HOOD, MILLER and DOMEN-GEAUX, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

The trial court awarded property damages to plaintiffs Benny Lee Mallory and his insurer Motors Insurance Corporation on the finding that Mallory’s northbound vehicle sideswiped defendant John L. Bol-ing’s southbound pickup truck when Boling jackknifed his boat trailer and suddenly entered plaintiff’s traffic lane. Defendant’s reconventional demand was dismissed. Defendant appealed both findings and we affirm.

Defendant contends that the accident occurred in defendant’s southbound lane after defendant had stopped. Defendant showed that a northbound wrecker took the shoulder to avoid striking defendant’s vehicle as it jackknifed and contended that plaintiffs’ driver of the following vehicle had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

The evidence supports the trial court finding that the left front of plaintiff’s car struck the left rear side of defendant’s pickup truck in the northbound lane. The accident occurred during a heavy rain. Defendant approached a line of stopped cars and applied his brakes too quickly. His boat trailer caused him to jackknife such that the left rear of his pickup truck entered about four to six feet of plaintiff’s northbound lane. The driver of the northbound wrecker saw the problem developing and avoided the accident by swerving onto the narrow east shoulder. The driver and passenger in the wrecker were disinterested witnesses and testified that plaintiff had no opportunity to avoid the accident because the wrecker shielded defendant’s entry into ' the northbound lane and the accident occurred before plaintiff had time to avoid defendant’s pickup truck. Defendant admitted that he had “two beers” earlier in the day. On these findings which are not manifestly erroneous, the cases cited by defendant are distinguished.

Defendant contends that there is a presumption against plaintiff because plaintiff failed to call his guest passenger. The record preponderates in favor of the trial court’s determination. There is no requirement that to be successful, a litigant must produce all witnesses who might have knowledge of the occurrence. Haynes v. Modern Woodmen of America, 135 So.2d 548 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1962).

Last clear chance does not apply. A motorist is not liable to a person who moves or swerves in front of his moving vehicle so as not to allow sufficient time to avoid the collision. Whitfield v. Travelers Insurance Co., 160 So.2d 353 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1964).

The trial court judgment is affirmed at defendant-appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 738 

Recognizing the self determination of Gibraltar to determine its status as 

a British Overseas Territory. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. HOLDING (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. PETRI, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MURPHY of Florida, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. GRAYSON, and Ms. 

WILSON of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the self determination of Gibraltar to determine 

its status as a British Overseas Territory. 

Whereas the Department of State recognizes Gibraltar as an 

overseas territory of the United Kingdom based on the 

1713 Treaty of Utrecht; 

Whereas the citizens of Gibraltar have freely and democratically expressed their view to remain a British Overseas 

Territory in 1967 and 2002 when 99.6 and 98.48 percent 

of the Gibraltarians, respectively, voted in a popular 

referenda their wish to remain a British Overseas Territory; 

Whereas the United States has relied on Gibraltar’s military 

facilities numerous times, including America’s first overVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:00 Sep 20, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR738.IH HR738

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 738 IH 

seas military intervention in 1801 against the Barbary 

States, World War II, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervention in 2011 in Libya; 

Whereas, during World War II, General Dwight Eisenhower 

used Gibraltar as his headquarters to plan the liberation 

of North Africa stating, ‘‘Without it the vital air cover 

would not have been quickly established on the North African fields.’’; 

Whereas the security situation in North Africa and the Middle East continues to underscore the need for the United 

States to maintain secure access to Gibraltar’s military 

facilities; 

Whereas Gibraltar has the right, under the United Nations 

Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to determine its own future; and 

Whereas the United Kingdom is a loyal ally that has stood 

by the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the United States honors the contribution 

4 that Gibraltar has made to advancing United States 

5 security interests in the Mediterranean region since 

6 1801 and extends its deepest appreciation and 

7 thanks to the Government of Gibraltar and its citi8 zens; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 738 IH 

1 (2) the views and rights of Gibraltarians should 

2 always be imperative in any discussion of Gibraltar’s 

3 status as a British Overseas Territory. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                                 NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001
                                                                             ---------------------------------------------
                                                                               NUMBER          PERCENT          EQUIVALENT
                                                                             OF SHARES       OUTSTANDING          SHARES
                                                                             ---------       -----------        ----------
<S>                                                                        <C>              <C>               <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                                       2,300,000         100.00%         2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                                                    2,508,997         100.00%         2,508,997
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                                 15,310,943         100.00%        15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                                               11,242,857         100.00%        11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                                                4,323,874         100.00%         4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                                                 6,000,000         100.00%         6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                                               (6,588)        100.00%            (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                                                       3,789,715         100.00%         3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                                         714,286         100.00%           714,286
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued                                   190,651         100.00%           190,651
   Warrants Exercised                                                           134,737         100.00%           134,737
                                                                            -----------                       -----------
                                                                             46,509,472                        46,509,472

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                            46,509,472

NET LOSS                                                                                                      (96,125,264)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                                                 ($2.07)
                                                                                                              ===========
</Table>
#### Ronnie L. VANZANT v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46904.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 9, 1972.

Zachary, Weldy & Ingram, Jolly W. Matthews, III, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Timmie Hancock, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Harry G. Walker, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and JONES, INZER, SMITH and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### Gladys Dann Mingo Daniels HICKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-508.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dzow Lee, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 409]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered February 27, 1995, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed *(see, People v Li Ah,*237 AD2d 306 [decided herewith]). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.3


 


As of March 22, 2021, our authorized capital
stock consists of 500,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of which 98,968,400 shares are issued and outstanding.


 


The authorized and unissued shares of our
common stock are available for issuance without further action by our stockholders, unless such action is required by applicable
law or the rules of The NYSE MKT, or any stock exchange on which our securities may be listed at such time. Unless approval of
our stockholders is so required, our board of directors will not seek stockholder approval for the issuance and sale of our common
stock.


 


Common Stock


 


Each outstanding share of common stock
is entitled to one vote, either in person or by proxy, on all matters that may be voted upon by their holders at meetings of the
stockholders.


 


Holders of our common stock:


 


		(i)	have equal ratable rights to dividends from funds
legally available therefore, if declared by the Board of Directors;



 


		(ii)	are entitled to share ratably in all our assets available
for distribution to holders of common stock upon our liquidation, dissolution or winding up;



 


		(iii)	do not have preemptive, subscription or conversion
rights; and



 


		(iv)	are entitled to one non-cumulative vote per share
on all matters on which stockholders may vote at all meetings of our stockholders.



 


The holders of shares of our common stock
do not have cumulative voting rights, which means that the holder or holders of more than fifty percent (50%) of outstanding shares
voting for the election of directors can elect all of our directors if they so choose and, in such event, the holders of the remaining
shares will not be able to elect any of the our directors.


 


Our common stock is listed on The NYSE
MKT under the symbol “ITP.” The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Empire Stock Transfer Inc., 859
Whitney Mesa Dr., Henderson, NV 89014.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       of
                            Periodic Financial Report
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
                                  Section 1350

I, Arthur G. Ritchie, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form
20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sand
Technology Inc.

Date: January 27, 2006.

                                       /s/ Arthur G. Ritchie
                                           Chairman of the Board,
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1192

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release restrictions on the

use of certain property conveyed to the city of Soldotna, Alaska, for

airport purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release restrictions on the use of certain property conveyed to

the city of Soldotna, Alaska, for airport purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Soldotna Airport

5 Improvement Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. RELEASE.

7 Notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal Airport

8 Act (as in effect on December 12, 1963), the Secretary

9 of Transportation is authorized, subject to the provisions
2

S 1192 IS

1 of section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C.

2 1622c), and the provisions of section 3 of this Act, to

3 grant releases from any of the terms, conditions, reserva4 tions, and restrictions contained in the deed of conveyance

5 dated December 12, 1963, under which the United States

6 conveyed certain property to the city of Soldotna, Alaska,

7 for airport purposes.

8 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

9 (a) Any release granted by the Secretary of Transpor10 tation under section 2 of this Act shall be subject to the

11 following conditions:

12 (1) The city of Soldotna, Alaska, shall agree

13 that, in conveying any interest in the property which

14 the United States conveyed to the city by deed dated

15 December 12, 1963, the city will receive an amount

16 for such interest which is equal to the fair market

17 value (as determined pursuant to regulations issued

18 by the Secretary of Transportation).

19 (2) Any such amount so received by the city

20 shall be used by the city for the development, im21 provement, operation, or maintenance of a public

22 airport.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 Annual Report of Coinstar, Inc. (the“***Company***”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-K***”), I, Brian V. Turner, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: March 9, 2007
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1064

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to clarify coverage of certified

nurse-midwife services performed outside the maternity cycle under the

medicaid programs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 28 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to clarify

coverage of certified nurse-midwife services performed

outside the maternity cycle under the medicaid programs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE OF CERTIFIED

4 NURSE-MIDWIFE SERVICES PERFORMED

5 OUTSIDE THE MATERNITY CYCLE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a)(17) of the Social

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(17)) is amended by in8 serting before the semicolon at the end the following:

9 ‘‘, and without regard to whether or not the services are
2

•S 1064 IS

1 concerned with the management of mothers and newborns

2 throughout the maternity cycle’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished on or after

5 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ