alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Introduction to “Global tsunami science: Past and future, Volume III”      

      April 26, 2018    

Twenty papers on the study of tsunamis are included in Volume III of the PAGEOPH topical issue “Global Tsunami Science: Past and Future”. Volume I of this topical issue was published as PAGEOPH, vol. 173, No. 12, 2016 and Volume II as PAGEOPH, vol. 174, No. 8, 2017. Two papers in Volume III focus on specific details of the 2009 Samoa and the 1923 northern Kamchatka tsunamis; they are followed by three papers related to tsunami hazard assessment for three different regions of the world oceans: South Africa, Pacific coast of Mexico and the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean. The next six papers are on various aspects of tsunami hydrodynamics and numerical modelling, including tsunami edge waves, resonant behaviour of compressible water layer during tsunamigenic earthquakes, dispersive properties of seismic and volcanically generated tsunami waves, tsunami runup on a vertical wall and influence of earthquake rupture velocity on maximum tsunami runup. Four papers discuss problems of tsunami warning and real-time forecasting for Central America, the Mediterranean coast of France, the coast of Peru, and some general problems regarding the optimum use of the DART buoy network for effective real-time tsunami warning in the Pacific Ocean. Two papers describe historical and paleotsunami studies in the Russian Far East. The final set of three papers importantly investigates tsunamis generated by non-seismic sources: asteroid airburst and meteorological disturbances. Collectively, this volume highlights contemporary trends in global tsunami research, both fundamental and applied toward hazard assessment and mitigation.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Eric Geist

##### Research Geophysicist

Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center

egeist@usgs.gov

650-439-2457

## Related Content

#### Eric Geist

##### Research Geophysicist

Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center

egeist@usgs.gov

650-439-2457

### Contact

####               Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center          

2885 Mission StreetSanta Cruz, CA95060United States

831-460-7401
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





REQUIRED
BY RULE 13A - 14(A) OR RULE 15D - 14(A)





I,
  Adam Radly, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1.
  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Edgetech
Services Inc.





2.
  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.
  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.
  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:





(a)
 Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





(b)
 Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
 Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and





5.  
The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control    over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent
functions):





(a)  
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





(b)
 Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.





Date:
   June 15, 2009 /s/   Adam Radly


Chief Executive Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Low-velocity impact craters in ice and ice-saturated sand with implications for Martian crater count ages.      

      January 1, 1979    

We produced a series of decimeter-sized impact craters in blocks of ice near 0oC and -70oC and in ice-saturated sand near -70oC as a preliminary investigation of cratering in materials analogous to those found on Mars and the outer solar satellites. Crater diameters in the ice-saturated sand were 2 times larger than craters in the same energy and velocity range in competent blocks of granite, basalt and cement. Craters in ice were c.3 times larger. Martian impact crater energy versus diameter scaling may thus be a function of latitude. -from Authors

## Citation Information
Unassociated Document


 



CANCELLATION AGREEMENT


 


CANCELLATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), dated as of February 21, 2012, is by and between SILVER HORN MINING LTD., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Daniel Bleak, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company.


 


Mr. Bleak, being the owner of an option (the “Bleak Option”) to purchase up to 30,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Common Stock”), of Silver Horn Mining Ltd. (the “Company”) pursuant to a stock option agreement (the “Option Agreement”) with the Company dated as of May 2, 2011, hereby agrees to cancel, waive, relinquish and disclaim in all respects the Bleak Option, all shares of Common Stock or other securities of the Company underlying the Bleak Option, and any rights or benefits provided to him under the Option Agreement.







This letter shall constitute the full agreement of the parties.












DANIEL BLEAK

















/s/ Daniel Bleak


 

 












Acknowledged and accepted:







SILVER HORN MINING LTD.

















By: /s/ Daniel Bleak


Name: Daniel Bleak


Title: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31
I, Edwin S Baldwin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Case Financial, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating  to the small  business  issuer,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the small  business  issuer's  disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business  issuer's internal
control over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the most recent fiscal
quarter (the small  business  issuer's  fourth fiscal  quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially  affect,  the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. I have  disclosed,  based on our most recent  evaluation of internal  control
over financial reporting,  to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee  of the  small  business  issuer's  board  of  directors  (or  persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely to  adversely  affect  the small  business  issuer's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 16, 2004

/s/
----------------------------
Edwin S Baldwin
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Ethan D. Hokit, Chief Financial Officer of Military Resale Group, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify, 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
my knowledge, based upon a review of Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the Registrant, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




                                     By:  /s/ Ethan D. Hokit
                                         -------------------------------
                                          Name: Ethan D. Hokit
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer


July 22, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Military Resale Group, Inc. and will be retained by Military Resale
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

<PAGE>
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 408TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on May 20, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

David Mauk, Appellant

V.

Pipe Creek Water Well, LLC and Robert Rae Powell, Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00906

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013

- CI

- 00386

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these word s:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order

is AFFIRMED. Appellees’ motion to strike Appendix 2 to Appellant’s brief is

MOOT. Costs of this appeal are taxed against David Mauk.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on August 7, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00906

- CV

David Mauk

v.

Pipe Creek Water Well, LLC and Robert Rae Powell

(NO. 2013

- CI

- 00386 IN 408TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE $10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$381.00

$25.00

$20.00

$100.00

$50.00 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID MEGAN KUCERA

ADOLFO RUIZ

KEITH P MILLER

KEITH MILLER

MEGAN KUCERA

ADOLFO RUIZ

ADOLFO RUIZ

ADOLFO RUIZ

ADOLFO RUIZ

ADOLFO RUIZ

ADOLFO RUIZ

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this August 7, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133532 & (18) (19) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 133532 

 COA: 275762 

Saginaw CC: 84-005570-FC 

ROBIN RICK MANNING, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motions for 

appointment of counsel and to remand are DENIED. 

s0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD E. CANNON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-96-792, CA-98-1340-6-20)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard E. Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard E. Cannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Cannon, Nos. CR-96-792; CA98-1340-6-20 (D.S.C. May 28, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Edward H. Johnson, Individually and as Representative of the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., Petitioner, *v.*John V. N. Klein, as County Executive of the County of Suffolk, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

June 14, 1973.

*353
      *Richard Hartman*for petitioner. *George W. Percy, Jr., County Attorney,*for respondents.

Leon D. Lazeb, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks a judgment compelling respondent, the County of Suffolk, to comply with section 16 of the 1971 agreement, and subdivision (b) of section 16 of the 1972-1973 agreement, entered into between the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association and respondent Suffolk County.

Respondents have cross-moved for a judgment dismissing the petition asserting that petitioner’s remedy is arbitration pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or under the Taylor Law.

Copies of the agreements submitted with the cross motion show that a grievance procedure for the settlement of disputes (§ 26) has been established. The final step, or fourth level, of this grievance procedure provides for arbitration. Thus the relief which petitioner seeks in this instant proceeding would seem to be effectively barred.

In *Matter of Blum Folding Payer Box Co. (Raften)*(27 N Y 2d 35, 38), the Court of Appeals said: *“*The very broad limits of arbitrability envisioned in CPLR 7501, as reflected in *Matter of Exercycle Corp.*(Maratta) (9 N Y 2d 329), forbid any judicial interference with disputes logically connected with the agreement.”

(See, also, *Matter of River Brand Rice Mills*v. *Latrobe Brewing Co.,*305 N. Y. 36; *Matter of Suffolk Chapter Civ. Serv. Emyloyees Assn.,*Suffolk County, Index No. 72-15222, Dec. 29, 1972 [Stark, J.].)

On the other hand, if the gravamen of petitioner’s complaint is that respondents have not bargained in good faith, his remedy would then be to seek relief under the so-called Taylor Act (Civil Service Law, art. 14). In either case, however, petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the instant proceedings.

The petition, therefore, is denied and the cross motion of respondents for judgment dismissing the petition is granted without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek relief under the grievance procedure of the agreement (§ 26), or under the Taylor Act (Civil Service Law, art. 14), as he may be advised.

Submit judgment accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19948-19949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

[Docket ID USAF-2009-0028]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete a system of

[[Page 19949]]

records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
June 1, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office 
of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCPPI, 
1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ben Swilley at (703) 696-6648.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the address above.
    The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete a system of 
records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion 
is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 
(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or 
altered system report.

    Dated: April 27, 2009.
Morgan E. Frazier,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
F036 AF PC S

System Name:
    Contingency Operations System (COMPES) (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 
31793).

Reason:
    This system was incorporated into F036 AF PC C, Air Force Military 
Personnel Data System (PDS) (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793)

[FR Doc. E9-9902 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, J.A. FISCHER, T.J. STINSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOVANNY A. NATARENO

AVIATION ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN THIRD CLASS (E

- 4) , U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400225

GENERAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 27 March 2014

. Military Judge: Col Michael B. Richardson, USMC

. Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Northwest,

Silverdale, WA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LCDR D. E. Reike

, JAGC, USN

. For Appellant: Maj Emmett S. Collazo, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

11 September 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as

approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code

of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 473-15 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 473-15 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 473-15 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 3
Circuit Court for Cecil County

#07-K-00-000309 Argued April 7,2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 80 September Term, 2013

DANNY C. HOSKINS

v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Barbera, C.J., Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Watts, JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER
Filed: April 8, 2014DANNY C. HOSKINS * IN THE * COURT OF APPEALS v. * OF MARYLAND * No. 80 STATE OF MARYLAND * September Term, 2013


### PER CURIAM ORDER This case having been argued before the Court in the April Session of Court and upon consideration of the pleadings, papers, briefs, and record extract, it is this 8 day of April, 2014, th ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the motion to dismiss filed by the State be, and it is hereby, granted, it being determined by the Court that the relief sought by Petitioner/Appellant is not within the ambit of Section 8-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article, and it is further ORDERED, that this case is remanded to the Court of Special Appeals to consider the application for leave to appeal previously filed in that Court.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera Chief Judge