alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Surface Drain, Field Ditch (Code 607) 

This practice titled surface drain, field ditch is used for

surface drainage by installing a graded ditch for collecting

excess surface or subsurface water in a field. 

Practice Information 

The purpose of this practice is to intercept, collect and

convey surface and subsurface flows to an outlet. The

collected surface flows may originate from surface

depressions, sheet flow from natural and graded land

surfaces and channel flows from furrows. 

Applicable sites are flat or nearly flat and have soils that are slowly permeable or otherwise collect

water. It also applies to sites that have a shallow substrata that prevents percolation and outside areas

that contribute to runoff or seepage. The site requires an adequate outlet(s) for the disposal of

drainage water. This practice applies to small drainage ditches within a field, but not to main or lateral

ditches or grassed waterways. Compliance with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations is

required. 

The practice has a minimum expected life of 15 years. The operation and maintenance of a field ditch

includes; periodic inspections of the ditch especially after significant rainfall events, removal of

sediment and other debris from the ditch, and other routine maintenance such as weed control as

developed in the O&M plan. 

Common Associated Practices 

Conservation Practice Standard, Surface Drain, Field Ditch, Code 607, commonly applies with

Conservation Practice Standards such as: Integrated Pest Management, Code 595; Nutrient

Management, Code 590; Surface Drainage, Main or Lateral, Code 608; Underground Outlet, Code

620; Critical Area Planting, Code 342; and Drainage Water Management, Code 554. 

For further information contact your local NRCS field office.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1194 

To require the Commissioner of Social Security to update the medicalvocational guidelines used in disability determinations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require the Commissioner of Social Security to update 

the medical-vocational guidelines used in disability determinations. 

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 ‘‘Guiding Responsible 

5 and Improved Disability Decisions Act of 2015’’ or the 

6 ‘‘GRIDD Act of 2015’’. 

7 SEC. 2. UPDATING OF MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL GUIDELINES. 

8 As soon as possible after the date of the enactment 

9 of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall pre10 scribe rules and regulations that update the medical-vocaVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:31 May 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1194.IS S1194

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1194 IS

1 tional guidelines, as set forth in appendix 2 to subpart 

2 P of part 404 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, 

3 used in disability determinations, including full consider4 ation of new employment opportunities made possible by 

5 advances in treatment, rehabilitation, and technology and 

6 full consideration of the effect of prevalent languages on 

7 education. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JAMES BROWN, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 546 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
AAM-11-468-E 

September 28, 2011 

 Exemption No. 9930A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0746 

Ms. Lynn Michaud 

Interstate Aviation, Inc. 

62 Johnson Avenue 

Plainville, CT 06062 

Dear Ms. Michaud: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9930. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 21, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Interstate Aviation, Inc. (Interstate Aviation), for an extension of 

Exemption No. 9930. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

allows Interstate Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover 

its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Interstate Aviation. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9930 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 
 2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Interstate Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at 

all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Interstate Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9930 to September 30, 2013, 

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9930 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9930. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 578/2006

of 7 April 2006         

fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (2), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2783/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (3), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003.

(3)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 104. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2916/95 (OJ L 305, 19.12.1995, p. 49).

(4)OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 47. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 405/2006 (OJ L 70, 9.3.2006, p. 46).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 7 April 2006 fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95

                     ‘ANNEX I

----

(1)  Origin of imports:

----
##### 



Exhibit 10.8(d)
 Fourth Amendment to the  Sterling Chemicals, Inc.  Amended and Restated Salaried Employees Pension Plan
 Whereas Corporation Existing Plan
 Whereas
 Whereas Amendment
 Now, Therefore
 Amendment of Section 3.1 of the Existing Plan
 (b)
    
    An employee who is credited with at least 1,000 Hours of
Service in the Service Computation Period that began on October 1, 1995
and ended on September 30, 1996 and in the Service Computation Period
that began on January 1, 1996, shall be credited with a year of Service
for each such Service Computation Period.
 Effect of Amendments
 Binding Effect
 Severability
 -v-




---



##### 



Governing Law To The Extent Not Superseded By The Laws Of The United
States, This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in Accordance With, and the Rights
of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State of Texas, Without Reference to
Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc./s/
Richard K. Crump
Richard K. Crump, President and ChiefExecutive Officer
 -v-
### -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 38 39 

## ★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/18 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.48 N 77.37 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
# C_2004314EN.01002501.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/25

---

Action brought on 15 October 2004 by Angel Angelidis against European Parliament

(Case T-424/04)

(2004/C 314/59)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 October 2004 by Angel Angelidis, residing in Luxembourg, represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Parliament's decision of 16 July 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Parliament's decision of 16 July 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant;

| — | Annul the applicant's staff report for 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant's staff report for 2002;

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation for non-material harm, evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 20,000, owing to the various substantial faults committed at various levels in the establishment of his staff reports and owing to the significant delay in definitively establishing those reports; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation for non-material harm, evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 20,000, owing to the various substantial faults committed at various levels in the establishment of his staff reports and owing to the significant delay in definitively establishing those reports;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law on which the applicant relies are identical to those in Case T-416/03, (1) brought by the same applicant.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004, p. 25.

---
Exhibit 10.14(a)
 
 Whereas Corporation Plan
 Whereas Committee
 Whereas Amendment
 Now, Therefore :
 Article IV
 Eligibility and Participation
 Amendment of Article IV of the Plan
 Effect of Amendments
 Binding Effect




---



##### 



Severability
 Governing Law To The Extent Not Superseded By The Laws Of The United
States, This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in Accordance With, and the Rights
of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State of Texas, Without Reference to
Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc./s/ Kenneth M. HaleKenneth M. HaleSenior Vice President and General Counsel
 IMPORTANT NOTE
  -2-
#### Wisconsin Distributing Company, Appellant, vs. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of Outagamie county dated September 10, 1926: Theodore Berg, Judge.

Action against carrier for neglect. Judgment in favor of defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant: *Frank, Wheeler & Pelkey*of Appleton.

For the respondent: /. *F. Baker*and *Llewellyn L.*Cole, both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         224,429
<SECURITIES>                                 1,080,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,771
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,968,342
<PP&E>                                       3,529,180
<DEPRECIATION>                                 896,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,701,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,180,019
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,167
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,190,829)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,701,322
<SALES>                                      1,381,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,381,111
<CGS>                                        1,567,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,929,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,243,418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             508,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,756,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,756,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                999,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,755,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.26
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      99.1


**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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.











Date:  March
      16, 2007   By: /s/
      Joseph M. Cummins


Joseph
      M.
      Cummins


President,
      Chief Executive Officer





Date:  March
      16, 2007   By: /s/
      Gary W. Coy


Gary
      W.
      Coy


Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-242-CV

IN THE MATTER OF LESLIE ANN

ORICO, AND ON BEHALF OF M.O. 

AND G.O., MINOR CHILDREN

	----------

	FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “Motion To Dismiss Appeal Of Appellant Eugene A. Orico, IV.”  It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).  

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

							PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.		

DELIVERED: September 8, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50773

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN SHORTER

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-281-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Kevin Shorter appeals his conviction for possession with intent to

distribute more than five grams of a mixture and substance containing a

detectable amount of cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred by

admitting physical and documentary evidence pertaining to the cocaine involved

in his offense because the chain of custody of the cocaine was not sufficiently

established.

Shorter challenged the admission of the evidence below, and we therefore

review his claim for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 30, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-50773 Document: 00511159486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2010
No. 09-50773

192, 197 (5th Cir. 1997). “[A] ‘break in the chain of custody simply goes to the

weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.’” Id. (quoting United States v.

Sparks, 2 F.3d 574, 582 (5th Cir. 1993)). When the defendant questions the

authenticity of evidence, the district court must determine whether there is

substantial evidence from which the jury could infer that the evidence is

authentic. United States v. Jardina, 747 F.2d 945, 951 (5th Cir. 1984).

The record establishes that the Government set forth sufficient evidence

to establish the authenticity of the disputed evidence. See id; United States v.

Smith, 481 F.3d 259, 264-65 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence to be admitted. See Dixon, 132

F.3d at 197.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-50773 Document: 00511159486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2010
Order entered December 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 01044 - CV KIMLEY - HORN AND ASSO CIATES, INC., Appellant V. WESTERN RIM PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. , ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 19 - 03270



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 2, 2019 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file its brief on the merit s. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 2, 2020

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              93
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      542
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         94
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,144
<PP&E>                                           6,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,359)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,440
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,702
<OTHER-SE>                                     (37,760)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,226
<SALES>                                          5,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,303
<CGS>                                            2,208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (248)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NRO·APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DE.CLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

Hx SECREI 

lORKfNG PAPER, DESTROY· 

OR CONTROL BY '1P 

OPTICAL TEcHNOLOGY DIVISION.· 

OPTO-MECHANICAL DESIGN ENGINEERING 

Memorandum ME 60 

TO: Distribution DATE: September 30, 1971 

FROM: L.B. Molaskey ./ • 

SUBJECT: Trip Report - Recovery of #3 - San Diego, California - Activities 

of 9-22-71 

It was reported this morning that the DeSteiguer, the search ship 

which is being outfitted in Seattle, Washington, has been delayed due to a 

cable/winch problem. At last report it was two days behind schedule and slipping on a day for day basis until the 'problem is solved. They report that it 

·should set out for .the site on Thursday 9-23-71. 

Most of the day was spent rigging the hook to the Trieste in such a· 

manner that it won't swing around in heavy sea and damage the instrumentation 

located in the area. The Trieste's crew fabricated a channel iron frame which 

they mounted to the bow structure. They then bolted the hook in place and 

foun~ that the structure was too flexible to secure the hook adequately. 

I recommended the addition of a couple of braces that were then 

fabricated, welded in place, and did the job. 

They are also rerouting the hoist cable so as to locate the hook 

closer to the manipulator to avoid baving to drive up to the payload to operate 

the hook. This has been a problem and as yet is not solved. More work is 

scheduled on it for tomorrow. 

Close inspection of the hook revealed that it doesn't open as far as 

it should. There is probably a dimensional error in the positioning of the . latch mechanism. Although it opens enough to surround the test shape, it leaves 

little room for maneuvering. To aleviate this I had them shorten the centerrod on each side by about J inches. This. provides a minimum opening of 70 inches 

which should be adequate. 

It was also reported today that the "test shape" provided by SPO was 

the wrong one. A new one is scheduled to arrive at noon on Thursday 9-23. We 

will have to drill some holes and instrument the dummy to allow it to sink and 

be able to find it on the bottom. 

No word yet on the ice machines. That will be cheeked tomorrow. 

LBM/cj 

cc : M.F. Maguire 

H.W. Robertson 

R.W. Jones 

c. Karatzas 

P. Petty 

R. Roylance 

~~n 

~HQS) WORKING PAPER, DESTROY 

OR CONTROL BY CJn 

l'