alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Lapcevic, Joseph P

To: Jordan, Ronald

Cc: Flanders, Phillip; Thomas Finseth; Schroeder, Cuc; Dan-Tam Nguyen; Yan Zhuang; Cannon, William E

Subject: RE: Hatfield"s Ferry data

Date: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:43:40 PM

Attachments: HgDataComparison.xlsx

Ron,

I pulled the mercury data from my original download and compared it with the

spreadsheet I provided to you. All of the other mercury results matched up – see

attached spreadsheet. I believe with the info I forwarded last week (MDL/RL info)

this should cover everything I owe you. Sorry for the short delay – ended up at home

last Thursday afternoon dealing with a mainline sewage issue in my family room! 

Joe Lapcevic

Supervisor, Water Permitting

(724) 838 – 6099 work

(234) 678 – 2385 fax

FirstEnergy Corp.

800 Cabin Hill Drive

Greensburg, PA 15601-1689

From: Jordan, Ronald [mailto:Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:24 AM

To: Lapcevic, Joseph P

Cc: Flanders, Phillip; Thomas Finseth; Schroeder, Cuc; Dan-Tam Nguyen; Yan Zhuang

Subject: Hatfield's Ferry data

Good morning Joe,

I’m following up on a few remaining questions we had about the Hatfield’s Ferry data. According to

my notes, you’re checking into the following:

1. Reviewing the data you provided to see if there were additional transcription errors

between the spreadsheets you provided on 5/2/14 and 5/13/14. (During the last call, you

confirmed which values were correct for 12/20/11, 1/3/12, 2/2/12, and 2/21/12.)

2. Provide the MDL/RL information for analytes other than arsenic and mercury. (It would be

best if you provide this separate from the arsenic and mercury data you already sent us.

There’s no need for you to resend the arsenic and mercury data and doing so will just trigger

another round of reviews to check for discrepancies between datasets.)

If possible, it would be great to wrap this up by the end of the week.

Regards,

Ron

The information contained in this message is intended only for the

personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent

responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that you have received this document in error and that any

review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly

prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify

us immediately, and delete the original message.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                     MULTIMEDIA CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X


The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements  for the three  months  ended March 31, 1997 and is  qualified in its
entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<CAPTION>

<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           apr-01-1997
<CASH>                                                 274,685
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          74,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            202,402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       2,270,224
<PP&E>                                                 29,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                         15,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         7,611,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  794,561
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               3,005
<OTHER-SE>                                             6,814,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           7,611,713
<SALES>                                                1,041,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,042,089
<CGS>                                                  1,166,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          126,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       1,166,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (250,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (250,966)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (250,966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (250,966)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.08)
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
EX-4.20


   

  EXHIBIT 4.20

   

  COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

   

  27 July 2022

  Mr Connor B Bernstein

  JB STRATEGY PARTNERS LLC

  552 Hauth Lane

  Walnut Creek, CA 94567, USA

  Dear Connor

  Amendment to your Consultancy Agreement dated 1 April 2021

  I wish to confirm that the Company would like to extend the term of your consultancy services for the period of 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023.

  1.Clause 8.1 (a) of the Agreement will be replaced with the following is replaced with the following:


  "Subject to clause 8.1(b), Bionomics may terminate this agreement by paying severance of three (3) months of the fee set out in Schedule 3 of the agreement."

  2.Clause 8.2 of the Agreement will be replaced with the following is replaced with the following:


  "The Consultant may terminate this Agreement for any reason whatsoever by giving Bionomics three (3) month's written notice."

  3.The first sentence in Schedule 2- Services of the Agreement will be replaced with the following sentence:


  'The Consultant will devote approximately 100% of his time to perform the duties of Vice President of Strategy & Corporate Development."

  4.Schedule 3 - Fees of the Agreement will be replaced with the following is replaced with the following:


  "The fee shall for the provision of Executive Services shall be:

  a)USD 22,500 per month or USD270,000 per year, payable by invoicing the Company at the end of each month during the provision of Executive Services. 


  b)Reimbursement for up to US$10,000 in documented expenses for you for the purchase of Health Insurance or personal medical expenses.


  c)Bonus target of 30% of USD 270,000 with 50% based on Company Goals and 50% based on Personal Goals


  Please confirm your agreement to this amendment on the terms outlined in this letter by signing and dating this letter and returning it to me at your earliest convenience.

  Yours sincerely

  /s/ Errol de Souza

  Errol B De Souza

  Executive Chairman

  				
	/s/ Connor Bernstein
	 
	7/27/22
	 

	.......................................
	 
	........................................
	 

	Connor Bernstein
	 
	Date
	 



   

  200 Greenhill Road, Eastwood SA 5063 Australia    Phone  61 8 8150 7400 Email info@bionomics.com.au  website  www.bionomics.com.au

  Exh. 4.20-1
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1655 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve waivers 

under the Medicaid Program under title XIX of the Social Security 

Act that are related to State provider taxes that exempt certain retirement communities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2013 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to approve waivers under the Medicaid Program under 

title XIX of the Social Security Act that are related 

to State provider taxes that exempt certain retirement 

communities. 

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 ‘‘Provider Tax Adminis5 trative Simplification Act of 2013’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1655 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROVIDER TAX RULE EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN 

2 CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMU3 NITIES. 

4 In the case of a State that has a provider tax that 

5 does not apply to continuing care retirement communities 

6 or life care communities (as such terms are used for pur7 poses of section 1917(g) of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 1396p(g)) that have no beds that are certified to 

9 provide medical assistance (as such term is defined under 

10 section 1905(a) of such Act) under title XIX of the Social 

11 Security Act or that do not provide services for which pay12 ment may be made under title XIX of the Social Security 

13 Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

14 approve a waiver under section 433.68(e)(2)(iii) of title 

15 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations regardless of 

16 whether the Secretary determines that the State satisfies 

17 the requirements of section 433.68(e)(2)(iii)(B) of such 

18 title. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
259 La. 894

#### Mrs. Jane Elizabeth EANES v. Victor McKNIGHT et al. Luther S. FORTENBERRY et ux. v. Victor McKNIGHT et ux.

No. 51788.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1971.

In re: Victor McKnight and Wanda S. McKnight applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 251 So.2d 491.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Gary Jelicks et al., Appellants, v Shakira Camacho, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 631]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated March 27, 2001, as, upon reargument and renewal of a prior order of the same court dated October 12, 2000, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), adhered to the prior *536determination, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated July 5, 2001, which denied their motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with costs.

It is well settled that a litigant may not raise any issue on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, on an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see, *Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350). Here, the plaintiffs appealed from a prior order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 12, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). That appeal (App Div Docket No. 2000-10238) was dismissed by decision and order of this Court dated May 30, 2001, for failure to prosecute. The dismissal for lack of prosecution bars the instant appeal which raises issues which could have been raised on the prior appeal (see, *Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 750; *Bray v Cox, supra).*

Moreover, the appeal from the order dated July 5, 2001, must be dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (see, *Weissberger v Ashikari,*278 AD2d 409). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.
Table 2.  Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates, by Area:  Third Quarter 2002r and 2003







                                    Rental vacancy rates





                           Third        Third      Standard     Standard

Area                      quarter      quarter     error on     error on

                           2002r        2003       2003 rate   difference





United States..........         9.0          9.9          0.2          0.2



  Inside MAs...........         8.7          9.7          0.2          0.3

    In central cities..         9.4         10.2          0.3          0.4

    Not in central cities

    (suburbs)..........         7.8          9.2          0.3          0.4

  Outside MAs..........        10.6         10.9          0.5          0.7



 Northeast.............         6.0          6.6          0.4          0.5

 Midwest...............        10.3         11.0          0.4          0.6

 South.................        11.4         12.4          0.3          0.5

 West..................         6.8          8.1          0.3          0.4







                                    Homeowner vacancy rates





                           Third        Third      Standard     Standard

Area                      quarter      quarter     error on     error on

                           2002r        2003       2003 rate   difference



United States..........         1.7          1.9          0.1          0.1



  Inside MAs...........         1.6          1.8          0.1          0.1

    In central cities..         2.2          2.2          0.1          0.2

    Not in central cities

    (suburbs)..........         1.3          1.6          0.1          0.1

  Outside MAs..........         2.0          2.4          0.1          0.2



 Northeast.............         1.2          1.4          0.1          0.2

 Midwest...............         1.7          1.8          0.1          0.1

 South.................         1.9          2.3          0.1          0.1

 West..................         1.6          1.7          0.1          0.2

       rRevised
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header History
 You are here: Census.gov ›
  History ›
  FAQs › Miscellaneous FAQs Skip top of page navigation
 History Main
      Agency History
        Director Biographies
          Census Facilities
          Suitland, MD
          Notable Alumni
      Innovations
        Data Collection
          Technology
      Programs
        Agriculture
          Demographic
          Housing
          Economic
          Geography
          Governments
      Through the Decades
        Fast Facts
          Overview
          Index of Questions
          Questionnaires
          Census Instructions
      Genealogy
        Decennial Census Records
          Other Resources
      Reference
        Data@Museums
          Artifacts
          Lesson Plans
          Legislation
          Maps
          Oral Histories
          Privacy & Confidentiality
          Apportionment
          Publications
 Home Page Archive
        2024
          2023
          2022
          2021
          2020
          2019
          2018
          2017
          2016
          2015
          2014    
      FAQs
        Genealogy
          Agency History
          Demographic
          Economic
          Governments
          Agriculture
          Geography
          Innovations
          Miscellaneous
  In this Section: Where can I find historic census-related photos?
 Miscellaneous FAQs Just like the people, businesses, and homes for which the U.S. Census Bureau collects data, some questions simply do not fit into an easily definable category.  If your question was not answered by one of the other FAQ sections, perhaps you will find it here. census employeesAs evidenced by this 1930s photo, the process of transferring data from a handwritten censusschedule to punch cards was largely performed by women.  These clerks would produce thousandsof punch card each day that were tabulated, sorted, and tabulated again, to produce statistical tables.
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Albert LANDRY et al. v. Edith P. DENT et al.

No. 61784.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Albert Landry and Bessie Landry applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 358 So.2d 673.

Writ denied.
1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3440

___________ John K. Hulett, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Brink’s Home Security, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 28, 2006 Filed: August 29, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John Hulett appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman , 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo standard of review ), we find the district court’s analysis to be correct, thorough, and well-reasone d. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         629,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,223,260
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,718,722)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,407,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      6,026,515
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,407,931
<SALES>                                      2,456,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,655,140
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,261,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             702,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (308,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (308,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 38198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16595]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83737; File No. SR-BOX-2018-20]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice 
of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7300 
(Preferenced Orders) To Provide an Additional Allocation Preference to 
Preferred Market Makers

July 30, 2018.
    On June 13, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule 
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 7300 
(Preferenced Orders) to provide an additional allocation preference to 
Preferred Market Makers. The proposed rule change was published for 
comment in the Federal Register on July 2, 2018.\3\ The Commission 
received one comment letter on the proposal.\4\ On July 25, 2018, the 
Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-BOX-2018-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83525 (June 26, 
2018), 83 FR 31006.
    \4\ See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from 
Richard J. McDonald, Susquehanna International Group, LLP, dated 
July 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16595 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Circuit Court for Allegany County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND 

 Case No. 01-K-11-014262

No. 9 

September Term, 2014

 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

 v.

 MITCHELL GASTON REID 

 

 

Barbera, C.J.

Harrell

Battaglia

 Greene

Adkins

McDonald

Watts, 

 JJ.

 PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: May 15, 2014 
STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE

 * COURT OF APPEALS

v. * OF MARYLAND

* No. 9 

MITCHELL GASTON REID * September Term, 2014

 PER CURIAM ORDER

 

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the above

entitled case, it is this 15 day of May, 2014 th

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special

Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated and the case is remanded to that Court for further consideration

in light of Nalls v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 54, September Term, 2013 filed

April 23, 2014); Melvin v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 95, September Term, 2013

filed April 23, 2014); Szwed v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 61, September Term,

2013 filed April 23, 2014); and Morgan v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 71,

September Term, 2013 filed April 23, 2014). Costs in this Court to be paid by the Respondent, and

costs in the Court of Special Appeals to abide the result.

 /s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge