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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Storage of treated sewage effluent and stormwater in a saline aquifer, Pinellas Peninsula, Florida      

      July 1, 1977    

The Pinellas Peninsula, an area of 750 square kilometres (290 square miles) in coastal west-central Florida, is a small hydrogeologic replica of Florida. Most of the Peninsula's water supply is imported from well fields as much as 65 kilometres (40 miles) inland. Stresses on the hydrologic environment of the Peninsula and on adjacent water bodies, resulting from intensive water-resources development and waste discharge, have resulted in marked interest in subsurface storage of waste water (treated effluent and untreated storm water) and in future retrieval of the stored water for nonpotable use. If subsurface storage is approved by regulatory agencies, as much as 265 megalitres per day (70 million gallons a day) of waste water could be stored underground within a few years, and more than 565 megalitres per day (150 million gallons a day) could be stored in about 25 years. This storage would constitute a large resource of nearly fresh water in the saline aquifers underlying about 520 square kilometres (200 square miles) of the Peninsula.

The upper 1,060 metres (3,480 feet) of the rock column underlying four test sites on the Pinellas Peninsula have been explored. The rocks consist chiefly of limestone and dolomite. Three moderately to highly transmissive zones, separated by leaky confining beds, (low permeability limestone) from about 225 to 380 metres (740 to 1,250 feet) below mean sea level, have been identified in the lower part of the Floridan aquifer in the Avon Park Limestone. Results of withdrawal and injection tests in Pinellas County indicate that the middle transmissive zone has the highest estimated transmissivity-about 10 times other reported values. The chloride concentration of water in this zone, as well as in the two other transmissive zones in the Avon Park Limestone in Pinellas Peninsula, is about 19,000 milligrams per litre. If subsurface storage is approved and implemented, this middle zone probably would be used for storage of the waste water and the zone would become the most extensively used in Florida for this purpose.

## Citation Information

### Contact

####               Ecosystems Mission Area Headquarters          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search:  Meteor Crater

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(17)
              - multimedia_image(5)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149203(2)
              - (-)news_news-149246(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Photography        September 19, 2019        Astronauts descending into Meteor Crater in Winslow Arizona.

Science Snippet        June 3, 2016        EarthView–Eye of the Sahara
Mallory MCCANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-812

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 27, 2018

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.

*793Mallory McCann challenges her fifteen-year sentence for armed robbery. We affirm the sentence without comment. However, we agree with McCann's contention that the trial court erred in imposing a $65 assessment pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), because the order assessing costs and fees fails to indicate the applicable county ordinance.1*See**Swift v. State*, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing *Ayoub v. State*, 901 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ); *Carter v. State*, 173 So.3d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We affirm the assessment but remand for the trial court to enter an amended order assessing costs and fees reflecting the applicable county ordinance. *See**Swift*, 53 So.3d at 395.

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

ATKINSON, J., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

1

McCann preserved this issue by raising it in a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
Reginald WILKINSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0181

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_publications(17)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - (-)multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - news_other_news(1)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)
              - (-)idaho(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

slideshow        September 23, 2021        Rocky Mountain Regional Snowpack Chemistry Photo Gallery
SOVEREIGN GLOBAL ADVISORS, LLC and Zaid Ali, Appellants, v. LENDING HOME FUNDING CORP., Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1360

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 3, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES H. COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-90) Submitted: October 15, 2004 Decided: October 25, 2004 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Dennis Murphy, Jr., J. DENNIS MURPHY, JR., P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, David Farnham, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: James H. Coleman appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to making a false statement to a federal agency, inviolation 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2000). Coleman was sentenced to a twoyear term of probation. Because Coleman pleaded guilty and waived his right to appeal his sentence, he is foreclosed from appealing any non-jurisdictional issue. See United States v. Willis , 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993). Coleman argues that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction because his conduct fell within the “judicial function” exception to making a false statement set forth in § 1001(b). Because Coleman was charged with, and convicted of, making a false statement to a federal agency, it is clear his conduct was not insulated from criminal liability by § 1001(b). Therefore, the district court properly possessed subject matter jurisdiction over Coleman’s offense. See § 1001(a). Accordingly, we affirm Coleman’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 21.1



December 31, 2006



Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.



Subsidiaries of the Registrant

(50.1% or
greater ownership)



|                                                    |  |               
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Legal Entity Name                                   |  | Inc./Org./Reg.
|Sunoco Partners LLC (Registrants General Partner)* |  | Pennsylvania  
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (Registrant)*        |  | Delaware      
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Logistics Partners GP LLC                    |  | Delaware      
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations L.P.           |  | Delaware      
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations GP LLC         |  | Delaware      
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.          |  | Texas         
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Pipeline L.P.                                |  | Texas         
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Pipeline Acquisition LLC                     |  | Delaware      
|                                                    | 
|Sun Pipe Line Company of Delaware LLC               |  | Delaware      
|                                                    | 
|Sunoco Partners Lease Acquisition & Marketing LLC   |  | Delaware      



|* | Not a subsidiaryincluded here only to illustrate organizational hierarchy
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.L. CHRIS CORPORATION, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. ASCENDANT COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2020 3D17-2015

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MARCH 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

West Palm Beach Division

www.flsb.uscourt.gov

In Re:

ANISA NAZAROVA Case No.: 21-17336-MAM

Debtor. Chapter 12

/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO TENDER 

POST-PETITION RETAINER [DE#60]

THIS CAUSE came before the court on January 28, 2022 at 9:30 AM upon the

Debtor’s Motion To Tender Post-Petition Retainer [DE #60]. The court has reviewed the 

file and the Motion, has heard the argument of counsel, and found good cause for the 

granting of the same for the reasons recited on the record. Accordingly 

It is ORDERED that: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED.

2. David Lloyd Merrill, Esq and The Associates are permitted to received postpetition Retainer from Debtor.

###

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 1, 2022.

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 96 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 2
Submitted by: David Lloyd Merrill, Esquire, The Associates, Harbour Financial 

Center, 2401 PGA Boulevard, Suite 280M, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; Office 

561.877.1111 Fax 772.409.6749; dlm@theassociates.com, shall serve a copy of this 

order on all required parties and file a certificate of service as required under Local 

Rule 2002-1(F). 

Case 21-17336-MAM Doc 96 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350

We hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual
period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, to the best of my knowledge, fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Compass Minerals Group, Inc.

|                     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                     |  | COMPASS MINERALS GROUP, INC.              
|                     |  |                                           
|Date: March 19, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael E. Ducey                      
|                     |  |                                           
|                     |  | Michael E. Ducey                          
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer     
|                     |  |                                           
|                     |  | /s/ Rodney Underdown                      
|                     |  |                                           
|                     |  | Rodney Underdown                          
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer — Predevelopment to 1993      

      January 1, 1994    

View Document

Water-level change in the High Plains aquifer underlying parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming results from differences in recharge from precipitation and ground-water withdrawals for irrigation. From the beginning of irrigation development (1940) to 1980, water levels declined in several areas, and exceeded 100 feet in parts of the Central and Southern High Plains. From 1980 to 1993, water-level declines continued in these same areas, but at a smaller annual rate. This smaller rate of decline was associated with above-normal precipitation during 1981-93 and a decrease in ground-water application rates. Declines exceeding 20 feet from 1980 to 1993 were common in areas of intense irrigation development in the Central and Southern High Plains. In the Northern High Plains, water levels declined 10 to 20 feet from 1980 to 1993 in parts of northeastern Colorado, northwestern Kansas, southwestern Nebraska, and the Nebraska Panhandle. Water-level rises exceeding 20 feet, however, occurred in the Southern High Plains of Texas. Also, rises of 10 to 20 feet occurred in parts of southeastern and south-central Nebraska. The average area-weighted water level rose 0.21 foot from 1992 to 1993 in association was well-above normal precipitation in 1992. Water-level declines, however, continued in the intensively irrigated areas of the Central High Plains. Declines also' continued in the northern part of the Southern High Plains in spite of well-above normal precipitation. Water-level rises from 1992 to 1993 was widespread in eastern and southern Nebraska, northwestern and south-central Kansas, and in the southern two-thirds of the Southern High Plains of Texas in association with well-above normal precipitation in 1992. These rises exceeded 3 feet.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Wyoming-Montana Water Science Center - Helena Office          

3162 Bozeman AvenueHelena, MT59601United States

(406) 457-5900

### Explore Search

                  - Water
                  - United States
                  - High Plains Aquifer
                  - Colorado
                  -  Kansas
                  -  Nebraska
                  -  New Mexico
                  -  Oklahoma
                  -  Texas
                  -  Wyoming

View All **
Order filed July 23, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00049-CV

____________

PARKWAY CHEVROLET, INC., Appellant

V.

PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND 

KRISTEN DUCHARME, Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-51182

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due April 12, 2019. On May 7, 2019, this 

court issued an order requiring appellant to file a brief on or before May 22, 2019. 

On May 28, 2019, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file the brief in which 

counsel averred that the clerk’s record was insufficient. In requesting additional time 

in which to file its brief appellant averred that it would request a supplemental clerk’s 

record to be filed with this court. This court extended the due date for appellant’s 
brief an additional 30 days to June 28, 2019. No brief, supplemental clerk’s record,

or motion for extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 7, 2019, the 

court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
fmnb-ex102_115.htm



 

Exhibit 10.2 


	
	
Notice of Grant of

Restricted Stock Award, 

Performance-based Equity Award, and 

Performance-based Cash Award

	
Name

Address

City, State Zip Code




Subject to the terms and conditions of the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and the accompanying Restricted Stock Award Agreement, Performance-based Equity Award Agreement, and Performance-based Cash Award Agreement (the “Award Agreements”), you have been granted Shares of Restricted Stock, Performance-based Shares, and a Performance-based Cash Award (collectively the “Awards”) as follows:


		
	
Grant Date:
	
April 21, 2017

	
Number of Shares:
	
Your Awards consist of the following:

       Shares of Restricted Stock (each a “Share”) 1

     Performance-based Shares (ROE) 2

$ __  Performance-based Cash Award (TSR) 3

	
Vesting Schedule:
	
Your Restricted Stock will vest on the third anniversary of the Grant Date (Normal Vesting Date).

	
Settlement:
	
Your Awards will be settled in Shares or Cash as the case may be (if the restrictions on such Award lapse).




This Notice of Grant and the accompanying Award Agreement describes your Award and the terms and conditions of your Award.  To ensure you fully understand these terms and conditions, you should:


	
 
	
•
	
Read the Plan carefully to ensure you understand how the Plan works; and





	
 
	
•
	
Read this Notice of Grant and corresponding Award Agreement carefully to ensure you understand the nature of your Award and what you must do to earn it.  




You may contact Mark Nicastro by telephone (330-533-5025) or email (mnicastro@farmersbankgroup.com) if you have any questions about your Award or Award Agreement.

 

 

	
	 





	
1 
	
 Number of Shares of Restricted Stock were determined by multiplying $_________ (the dollar amount used to determine your total target Awards) by .25, and dividing the result by $____ (the average reported closing price of a Share during the 30-day period ending on the last trading day prior to the Grant Date). The resulting number of Shares were rounded to the nearest whole Share.





	
2 
	
 Number of Performance-based Shares were determined by multiplying $_________ by .5, dividing the result by $____ (to determine the target number of Performance-based Shares), and multiplying the result by 2 (to determine the maximum number of Performance-based Shares). The resulting number of Performance-based Shares were rounded to the nearest whole Share.





	
3 
	
 Your Performance-based Cash Award was determined by multiplying $_________ by .25 (to determine the target Performance-based Cash Award)..
David DEINE, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3698 5D17-3699 5D17-3700

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy Kelley Millet, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Trust Certificates
(TRUCs), Series 2001-4 Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
and

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and
the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based
upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as trustee, and its officers and agents.




                                  By:  /s/ Timothy Kelley Millet
                                       ---------------------------------
                                  Name: Timothy Kelley Millet
                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer/President,
                                         Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.
                                  Date:  March 26, 2004



                                       6
Ruben SOTO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1407

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MARCH 06, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         126,483
<SECURITIES>                                    10,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,183
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,404
<PP&E>                                           5,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,134)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,556
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           604
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,928
<SALES>                                          1,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,291
<CGS>                                            5,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (41,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (41,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.31)


</TABLE>