alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
www.nmenv.state.nm.us 

Original via UPS -- Copy via Electronic Mail 

June 8, 2012 

Mr. William K. Honker 

Acting Director 

Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Re: State Certification 

Dear Mr. Honker: 

JMIES H. DAVIS, Ph.D. 

Director 

Resource Protection Division 

Enclosed, please find the state certification for the following proposed NPDES pennit: 

Vessel General Permit (VGP) 

Small Vessel General Permit (vVGP) 

If any, comments and conditions are enclosed on separate sheets. 

cc: (w/enclosures) 

Ms. Diane Smith, USEPA (6WQ-NP) (via e-mail) Paul Juarez, USEPA (6WQ) (via e-mail) 
Dear Mr. Colman: 

The New Mexico Environment Department has examined the proposed NPDES permit above. The following 

conditions are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable provisions ofthe Clean Water Act Sections 

208(e), 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 and with appropriate requirements of State law. Compliance with the terms 

and conditions of the permit and this certification will provide reasonable assurance that the pennitted activities 

will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards and the water quality 

management plan and will be in compliance with the antidegradation policy. 

The State of New Mexico 

(X) certifies that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 208(e), 301, 

302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act and with appropriate requirements of State law 

() certifies that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 208( e), 301, 

302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act and with appropriate requirements of State law 

upon inclusion of the following conditions in the permit (see attachments) 

( ) denies certification for the reasons stated in the attachment 

( ) waives its right to certify 

In order to meet the requirements of State law, including water quality standards and appropriate basin plan as 

may be amended by the water quality management plan, each of the conditions cited in the draft pennit and the 

State certification shall not be made less stringent. 

The Department reserves the right to amend or revoke this certification if such action is necessary to ensure 

compliance with the State's water quality standards and water quality management plan. 

Please contact Richard Powell at (505) 827-2798, if you have any questions concerning this certification. 

Comments and conditions pertaining to this draft permit are attached. 
Conditions of Certification 

There are no comments at this time. 

Comments That Are Not Conditions Of Certification 

There are no comments at this time.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                      17,947,216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,157,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                   353,006
<INVENTORY>                                  1,131,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,312,285
<PP&E>                                     225,724,399
<DEPRECIATION>                              64,129,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             216,549,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,369,314
<BONDS>                                    206,798,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       23,144,551
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,128
<OTHER-SE>                                (43,803,250)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               216,549,243
<SALES>                                     19,408,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           169,604,607
<CGS>                                        9,518,788
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              135,844,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,546,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               330,905
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          20,394,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,386,537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,386,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,386,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.47)
        

</TABLE>
#### Roger Hallie LONG and Kenneth Ray Tucker, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. T-232 and T-233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 28, 1974.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Miller, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek reversal of their conviction on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. However, our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs, and oral argument of counsel convinces us that no reversible error has been demonstrated by appellants. Accordingly, the judgments and sentences reviewed herein are

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and BOYER, JJ., concur.
Order entered April 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01224-CR

TRAYVON DONTARIO HATTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-80148-2014

ORDER

Appellant’s March 30, 2015 third motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is 

GRANTED. The time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED to May 1, 2015. If appellant’s 

brief is not filed by May 1, 2015, this appeal will be abated so that the trial court can make 

findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6475** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TIDO MAURICE THOMPSON, a/k/a Tito Thompson , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Graham C. Mullen , Senior District Judge. ( 3:05

- cr - 00294

- GCM

- 1 )

Submitted : July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tido Maurice Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tido Maurice Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011). We have review ed the record and conclude the district court properly found it lacked the authority to reduce Thompson’s 120

- month sentence, which was the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that this court reviews de novo the district court’s “conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)”); see also Dillon v. United States , __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690

– 92 (2010) (clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing, but ra ther permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission)
. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United
States v. Thompson , No. 3:05

– cr – 00294

– GCM

- 1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Company's consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 1996
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              22,181
<SECURITIES>                                         4,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                       21,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3,006
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    48,458
<PP&E>                                              12,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                       7,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      60,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               29,645
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            64,085
<OTHER-SE>                                         (33,544)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        60,542
<SALES>                                             12,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    36,846
<CGS>                                                1,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       39,619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    20,132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (21,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            74
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (21,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (21,333)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.03)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST AMERICAN CLOCK CO. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   149
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           908
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,186
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (163)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles J. KRAMER, Jr.

No. 60609.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

A. J. Boudreaux, Staff Appeals Atty., 24th Judicial District Court, Indigent Defender Board, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Research and Appeals Division, Me-tairie, for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Shirley Jean KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-839.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 2, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
TELS CORPORATION
                                ----------------

                                   Exhibit 21

                            Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                             State of Incorporation                  Business Name
----                             ----------------------                  -------------

<S>                                        <C>                           <C>
TEL electronics, inc.                      Utah                          TEL electronics, inc.
MICROMEGA CORPORATION                      Utah                          MICROMEGA
MedTech, Inc.                              Utah                          MedTech, Inc.
D. J. GunTEL, Inc.                         Utah                          Micro Station or
                                                                             Computer Express
HTI (or Hash Tech, Inc.)                   Utah                          HTI,Inc.

</TABLE>















                      (THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
#### Richard M. DAVIS, a minor, by his father and next friend, Richard E. Davis and Richard E. Davis, Individually, Appellants, v. Michael R. JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 72-959.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

*555Edward D. Carlson, of Carlson & Meis-sner, Clearwater, for appellants.

Douglas J. Loeffler, of Fox, Burton, George & Loeffler, Clearwater, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken in this negligence action from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee Johnson. We reverse.

The appellant minor, a passenger on a motorcycle, was injured when the motorcycle collided with a cow which was running at large near the defendant’s property. The proof that the defendant owned the cow in question was circumstantial but the lower court conceded that ownership by the defendant could be inferred. The issue on this appeal is whether there are any facts or reasonable inferences therefrom tending to prove that the defendant improperly or inadequately fenced in his cattle, as a result of which they got loose and created the hazard from which appellants’ damages ensued.

At first blush, this case appears to fall within the scope of Gordon v. Sutherland, Fla.App. 3rd, 1961, 131 So.2d 520, and Lee v. Hinson, Fla.App. 2nd, 1964, 160 So.2d 166, in that on the night of the accident the defendant’s cattle apparently escaped through a gate which was inexplicably open after the defendant’s caretaker had previously secured it. However, the depositions reveal that neighborhood children and older persons often went in and out of the pasture, perhaps at will, and frequently left the gate open after passing through. The defendant’s cattle had escaped through the open gate on a number of previous occasions.

A land owner can be held liable for injuries inflicted by trespassers upon persons outside his premises if he had reason to anticipate that the trespasser would engage in the conduct which caused the injury and thereafter had a reasonable opportunity to prevent or control such conduct. See 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, at page 1526. Cf. DeRyss v. New York Cent. R. Co., 275 N.Y. 85, 9 N.E.2d 788 (1937).

The facts concerning the continued presence of unauthorized persons and the steps taken by the defendant to prevent the pasture gate from being left open are not sharply focused in the depositions. After the testimony is presented at the trial, the judge will be in a better position to determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient to permit the case to go to the jury.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,                           ( print page 34144)                        as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA International Research and Training Program Support Services (1158).                    

*Date:*                         August 9, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Susan O. McGuire, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4245, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-5817,                         *mcguireso@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2018.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-15358 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1998 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          87,712
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,481
<INVENTORY>                                      4,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,705
<PP&E>                                         248,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 466,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,052
<BONDS>                                        413,698
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                    (55,782)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   466,972
<SALES>                                         16,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,194
<CGS>                                           20,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,602
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,981)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,981)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (13,808)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,789)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.59)
        

</TABLE>