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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Use of 3H/3He Ages to evaluate and improve groundwater flow models in a complex buried-valley aquifer      

      January 1, 1998    

Combined use of the tritium/helium 3 (3H/3He) dating technique and particle-tracking analysis can improve flow-model calibration. As shown at two sites in the Great Miami buried-valley aquifer in southwestern Ohio, the combined use of 3H/3He age dating and particle tracking led to a lower mean absolute error between measured heads and simulated heads than in the original calibrated models and/or between simulated travel times and 3H/3He ages. Apparent groundwater ages were obtained for water samples collected from 44 wells at two locations where previously constructed finite difference models of groundwater flow were available (Mound Plant and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB)). The two-layer Mound Plant model covers 11 km2 within the buried-valley aquifer. The WPAFB model has three layers and covers 262 km2 within the buried-valley aquifer and adjacent bedrock uplands. Sampled wells were chosen along flow paths determined from potentiometric maps or particle-tracking analyses. Water samples were collected at various depths within the aquifer. In the Mound Plant area, samples used for comparison of 3H/3He ages with simulated travel times were from wells completed in the uppermost model layer. Simulated travel times agreed well with 3H/3He ages. The mean absolute error (MAE) was 3.5 years. Agreement in ages at WPAFB decreased with increasing depth in the system. The MAEs were 1.63, 17.2, and 255 years for model layers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Discrepancies between the simulated travel times and 3H/3He ages were assumed to be due to improper conceptualization or incorrect parameterization of the flow models. Selected conceptual and parameter modifications to the models resulted in improved agreement between 3H/3He ages and simulated travel times and between measured and simulated heads and flows.

## Citation Information

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Great Miami buried-valley aquifer
                  - Ohio

View All **
Justin J. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-896

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
CGFD47 (12/1/15)

United States Bankruptcy Court

 Southern District of Florida

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

Case Number: 19−25013−LMI

Chapter: 13

In re: (Debtor(s) name(s) used by the debtor(s) in the last 8 years, including married, maiden, and trade)

Eduardo M Interian

aka Eduardo Interian, aka Eduardo Mario Interian

1853 SW 3rd Street

Miami, FL 33135−1903

SSN: xxx−xx−7019

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE A POSTPETITION

INSTRUCTIONAL COURSE CONCERNING PERSONAL FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT AND SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLETION

OF THE COURSE TO THE COURT

 Notice is given that, subject to limited exceptions, a debtor (both debtors in a joint case) must

complete an instructional course in personal financial management in order to receive a discharge under

chapter 7 [11 U.S.C. §727(a)(11)], under chapter 13 [11 U.S.C. §1328(g)(1)] or, in certain individual

chapter 11 cases where 11 U.S.C. §1141(d)(3) applies. Proof of completion of the course must be

submitted to the court by either the debtor or the course provider on behalf of the debtor.

DEBTOR AND DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT:

 If the course provider has not filed a certificate with the court directly indicating that the debtor has

completed the course, the debtor must file the "Certification About a Financial Management Course",

(Official Bankruptcy Form 423):

 In a chapter 7 case: within 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under §341.

[See Bankruptcy Rules 1007(b)(7)(A) and (c).]

 In a chapter 13 case: no later than the date of the last payment made as required by the plan or the

filing of a motion for entry of a discharge under §1328(b). [See Bankruptcy Rules 1007(b)(7)(A) and (c).]

 In a chapter 11 individual case where 11 U.S.C. §1141(d)(3) applies: prior to completion of all

payments under the confirmed plan. [See Bankruptcy Rules 1007(b)(7)(B) and (c).]

 This requirement must be met before a discharge can be entered in this case. [See Bankruptcy Rule

4004(c)(1)(H) and Local Rule 4004−3(A).]

 Failure to file the Official Bankruptcy Form 423 certification form, unless the course provider files a

certificate on your behalf, may result in the case being closed without an entry of discharge.

 If the debtor subsequently files a motion to reopen the case to permit the filing of the Official

Bankruptcy Form 423, the debtor must pay the filing fee due for reopening the case. [See Local Rules

4006−1 and 5010−1(G).]

 A list of approved providers of Personal Finanical Management Courses is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/de_approved.htm [see 11 U.S.C. §111]

Dated: 1/6/20 CLERK OF COURT

By: admin

Deputy Clerk

The clerk shall serve a copy of this notice on the Debtor and Attorney for the Debtor

Case 19-25013-LMI Doc 26 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 1
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1 166 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 -NM - 1 69 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-19403-BKC-EPK

PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER 13

IN RE:

SEAMUS JAMES HOBAN

XXX-XX-8730

JANICE HALL HOBAN

XXX-XX-9319

_____________________________/

NOTICE OF CONTINUED CONFIRMATION HEARING

DEBTORS

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Confirmation Hearing has been continued to 

December 8, 2020 at 9:00 AM at the United States Federal Bankruptcy Courthouse, 1515 North 

Flagler Drive, Room 801, Courtroom B, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.

**EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY** Until further notice or unless directed otherwise, the court will 

ONLY hold Telephonic hearings. The following telephonic service providers CourtCall (888) 882−6878 or 

Court Solutions (917) 746−7476 will be permitted in ALL matters. Visit the court website to determine 

which service provider is being used by the presiding judge. Individuals not represented by counsel will be 

able to use the telephonic services FREE of charge. All attorneys shall advise their clients NOT to appear at 

the courthouse.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the Court may dismiss the above-referenced case for failure to propose a 

confirmable plan or for any other reason deemed necessary by the Court without further notice.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to practice in this 

Court as set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A) and that a true and correct copy of this Notice of Continued 

Confirmation Hearing was served, via U.S. first class mail, certified mail and/or CM/ECF, upon the parties 

listed on the attached service list this 19th day of November, 2020.

_____________________________________ /s/ Robin R. Weiner

ROBIN R. WEINER, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 559007

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33355-9007

TELEPHONE: 954-382-2001

FLORIDA BAR NO.: 861154

Case 20-19403-EPK Doc 29 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF CONTINUED CONFIRMATION HEARING

CASE NO.: 20-19403-BKC-EPK

SERVICE LIST

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

DEBTORS

SEAMUS JAMES HOBAN

JANICE HALL HOBAN

P.O. BOX 2669

PALM BEACH, FL 33480

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTORS

BRIAN J. COHEN, ESQUIRE

THE COHEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

1700 UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 210

CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071

BRIAN J. COHEN, ESQUIRE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO MAIL A CONFORMED COPY OF THIS 

NOTICE TO ALL CREDITORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT 

THEREOF.

Case 20-19403-EPK Doc 29 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-10216]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     Wehave issued our reports dated March 31, 2008 (which includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to theadoption of staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, FASB Interpretation No.48 and Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123(R))accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule andmanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of PharmaNetDevelopment Group, Inc. (formerly SFBC International, Inc.) appearingin the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of theaforementioned reports in the registration Statement of PharmaNetDevelopment Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File No.333-120152 effective, February 4, 2005), and Form S-8 (File No.333-118022, effective August 6, 2004; File No. 333-85270 effective August6, 2004 as amended on March 24, 2005; and File No. 333-123536,effective March 24, 2005)./s/ Grant Thornton LLPPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
STATE EX REL. Donald J. STELLY a/k/a Donald Joseph Stelly v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0204

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

*324Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Stelly v. State, 15-2199 (La. 3/14/16), 186 So.3d 644.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In re:

CASE NO. 20-21324

Ramon Rojas 

Ivon Brinas 

Debtor(s).

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING CONFIRMATION AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS CASE came on to be heard on the confirmation of a proposed chapter 13 plan. The

Court having entered an order (ECF # 84) setting deadlines to avoid dismissal, and the Trustee

having submitted this order and stating that the Debtor failed to provide the documents requested

including: amend plan to pay 100% of allowed unsecured claims., and based on the record, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Confirmation of the proposed chapter 13 plan is denied.

2. This case is dismissed.

3. All pending motions are denied as moot.

Robert A. Mark, Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________ United States Bankruptcy Court

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 19, 2021.

Case 20-21324-RAM Doc 86 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 2
4. The trustee shall file a final report prior to the administrative closing of the case.

5. (If applicable) the debtor shall immediately pay to the Clerk, U.S. Court, C. Clyde

Atkins United States Courthouse, 301 North Miami Avenue, Room 150, Miami, FL 33128 the

balance of the filing fee as required by Local Rule 1017!2(E). Any funds remaining with the

trustee shall be applied to this balance and the trustee must dispose of any funds in accordance

with the Bankruptcy Code, and Local Rule 1017!2(F), unless otherwise ordered by the court.

The court will not entertain a motion for reconsideration of this order unless all unpaid fees are

paid at the time the motion is filed.

6. A motion to rehear, reconsider, or reinstate a dismissed case must be filed in

accordance with the requirements of Local Rule 9013!1(E).

7. In accordance with Local Rule 1002!1(B), the clerk of court is directed to refuse to

accept for filing any future voluntary petitions submitted by this debtor if the refiling violates a

prior order of the court or if the petition is accompanied by an Application to Pay Filing Fee in 

Installments and filing fees remain due from any previous case filed by the debtor.

* * * 

Submitted by

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806

MIRAMAR, FL 33027

(954) 443-4402

The clerk shall serve a copy of this order on all parties of record.

Case 20-21324-RAM Doc 86 Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

STEVEN WILLIAM CARPENTER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30274 

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00065-BMM-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Steven William Carpenter appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, 

see United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512 (9th Cir. 1996), we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-30274 

The government asserts that Carpenter’s appeal should be dismissed because 

Carpenter filed an untimely notice of appeal. Contrary to the government’s 

contention, Carpenter’s notice of appeal was timely filed within fourteen days of 

the district court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); Houston v. Lack, 487 

U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is filed at the time the 

prisoner delivers it to prison authorities). 

Carpenter contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because he 

suffers from debilitating medical conditions that have been exacerbated by his 

confinement. However, Carpenter has not demonstrated that “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction because the recordireflects that 

his medical conditions are stable and have not substantially diminished his ability 

to provide self-care within the facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by 

denying Carpenter’s motion for a sentence reduction. 

AFFIRMED.

i

 We have confined our review of the record to what was presented to the district 

court and decline to consider documents Carpenter submitted for the first time on 

appeal. See Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1057 n.18 (9th Cir. 2014) (generally 

documents that are not filed with the district court cannot be made part of the 

appellate record). Even were we to consider the documents, however, it would not 

affect the outcome of this case.
Summary of Phone Conversations with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control

District

Phone conversation between Nicole Law (EPA) and Joven Nazareno (SJVAPCD) on August 4, 2009 at approximately 1:20pm.

This conversation was for Nicole to get more inf ormation regarding usage of three categories of coatings in Rule 4603 at SJVAPCD. The coating categories of interest were extreme high gloss, large appliance metal topcoat, and pretreatment wash primer. The district stated there are only three or four fa cilities which coat large appliances Joven went on to summarize what is written in the Staff Report for the December 23, 2008 submittal of Rule 4603. There are three permitted large appliance coating facilities and all three comply with the CTG. Joven w ent on to say they ar e likely not using extreme high gloss coating, metallic coatings, or pretreatment coatings. A compliance inspector in the district could only recall one facility which used metallic coating. It is a powder metallic coating and used f or refinishing operations.

Phone conversation between Nicole Law (EPA) and Anna Meyers (SJVAPCD) on July 30, 2009 at approximately 2:15 pm.

This conversation was for Nicole to get more information regarding usage of one category of coating in Rule 4612 a t SJVAPCD. The district claimed low usage, and stated that only one or two facilities use a small amount of precoat and topcoat metallic/iridescent coating.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4975 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4975

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 5720 South 142nd Street in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Petty Officer 1st 
              Class Caleb A. Nelson Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PETTY OFFICER 1ST CLASS CALEB A. NELSON POST OFFICE 
BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5720 South 142nd Street in Omaha, Nebraska, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Petty Officer 1st Class Caleb A. Nelson Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Petty 
Officer 1st Class Caleb A. Nelson Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Mercury on the move during snowmelt in Vermont      

      January 1, 2002    

Although mercury (Hg) emissions peaked in the United States over the last 20 to 40 years and are now declining, they remain well above natural background levels in soils and sediments. Only a small fraction of the Hg deposited from the atmosphere to the terrestrial landscape runs off in streamflow. However, some of this Hg is methylated in the environment and can potentially bioaccumulate to the top of food webs, posing a hazard to people who eat fish, especially children and pregnant women. What factors determine the amount of Hg that runs off in streams? During the 2000 snowmelt at Sleepers River in Vermont, strong correlations were found between dissolved and particulate mercury and the respective dissolved and particulate organic carbon fractions, even when data were pooled from 10 streams of diverse watershed size and land cover. Episodic export of particulate Hg during the highest flows appears to be the dominant mechanism of Hg movement.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Ecosystems Mission Area Headquarters          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

####             Water Resources Mission Area - Headquarters        

USGS Headquarters12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Vermont

View All **
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8144

SAMUEL BURT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-03110-SB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Burt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Burt seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and order denying 

his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burt has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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