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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Surface deformation as a guide to kinematics and three-dimensional shape of slow-moving, clay-rich landslides, Honolulu, Hawaii      

      January 1, 1998    

Two slow-moving landslides in Honolulu, Hawaii, were the subject of photogrammetric measurements, field mapping, and subsurface investigation to learn whether surface observations can yield useful information consistent with results of subsurface investigation. Mapping focused on structural damage and on surface features such as scarps, shears, and toes. The x-y-z positions of photo-identifiable points were obtained from aerial photographs taken at three different times. The measurements were intended to learn if the shape of the landslide failure surface can be determined from systematic surface observations and whether surface observations about deformation are consistent with photogrammetrically-obtained displacement gradients. Field and aerial photographic measurements were evaluated to identify the boundaries of the landslides, distinguish areas of incipient landslide enlargement, and identify zones of active and passive failure in the landslides. Data reported here apply mainly to the Alani-Paty landslide, a translational, earth-block landslide that damaged property in a 3.4-ha residential area. It began moving in the 1970s and displacement through 1991 totaled 4 m. Thickness, determined from borehole data, ranges from about 7 to 10 m; and the slope of the ground surface averages about 9°. Field evidence of deformation indicated areas of potential landslide enlargement outside the well-formed landslide boundaries. Displacement gradients obtained photogrammetrically and deformation mapping both identified similar zones of active failure (longitudinal stretching) and passive failure (longitudinal shortening) within the body of the landslide. Surface displacement on the landslide is approximately parallel to the broadly concave slip surface.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - Natural Hazards
                  - United States
                  - hawaii

View All **
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 74827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30473]

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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Meetings

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings 
in Washington, DC, Monday through Wednesday, January 7-9, 2013 on the 
times and location listed below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Monday, January 7, 2013

    10:30-4:00 p.m. Ad Hoc Rulemaking Committees: Closed to Public

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

    9:30-11:00 a.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues
    11:00-Noon Planning and Evaluation Committee
    1:30-2:30 p.m. Technical Programs Committee
    3:00-3:30 Ad Hoc Committee on Accessible Design in Education
    3:30-4:00 Budget Committee

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

    9:30 a.m.-Noon Ad Hoc Committee on Information and Communications 
Technologies: Closed to Public
    1:30-3:00 p.m. Board Meeting

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 
1331 F Street NW., suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-
0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting scheduled on the 
afternoon of Wednesday, January 9, the Access Board will consider the 
following agenda items:
     Administer Oath of Office to new appointees
     Approval of the draft September 12, 2012 meeting minutes 
(vote)
     Approval of the draft November 13-14, 2012 meeting minutes 
(vote)
     Planning and Evaluation Committee Report
     Technical Programs Committee Report
     Budget Committee Report
     Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Outdoor Developed Areas, final 
rule conforming amendment (vote); Transportation Vehicles, charter for 
new Rail Advisory Committee (vote)
     Executive Director's Report
     Public Comment, Open Topics
    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An 
assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription 
(CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board 
meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are 
requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances 
for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information).

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-30473 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 30570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-30604]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98-ACE-15]


Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Garden City, KS; Liberal, 
KS; Fort Dodge, IA; Fort Madison, IA; Columbus, NE; Grand Island, NE

Correction

     In proposed rule document 98-8142 beginning on page 15108 in the 
issue of Monday, March 30, 1998, make the following corrections:


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

    1. On page 15109, in the second column, under the heading ACE KS E2 
Garden City, KS [Revised], in the ninth line, ``with'' should read 
``within''.
    2. On page 15110, in the first column, under the heading ACE NE E5 
Grand Island, NE [Revised], in the 14th line, `` after 6.6-mile'' 
insert ``radius''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit 32

Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, who are the chief executive officer
and the chief financial officer of First South Bancorp, Inc., each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the accompanying Form 10-Q of the registrant 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 the report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

August 12, 2008



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/    Barry L. Slider 
| |  | Barry L. Slider        
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| | 
| |  | /s/    V. Lewis Shuler 
| |  | V. Lewis Shuler        
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 57161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-11026]



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 1998 / 
Corrections

[[Page 57161]]



CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. 99-C0002]


The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., a Corporation; Provisional 
Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order

Correction

    In notice document 98-27990, beginning on page 55847, in the issue 
of Monday, October 19, 1998, make the following correction:
    On page 55848, in the first column, in paragraph 4., in the first 
line, ``1998'' should read ``1988''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00095-CR

Wesley H. LEIFESTE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Mason County, Texas

Trial Court No. 84548

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 14, 2010

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

A jury found Wesley H. Leifeste guilty of driving while intoxicated. On October 28, 2009,

in open court, the trial court sentenced Leifeste to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, then suspended

the jail term and placed Leifeste on community supervision for twelve months. Leifeste received

the terms and conditions of his community supervision the same day. 

Leifeste filed a timely motion for new trial. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal was

therefore January 26, 2010, “90 days after the day sentence [was] . . . suspended in open court.”
04-10-00095-CR

-2-

TEX.R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). A notice of appeal was not filed until February 1, 2010. Leifeste did not

file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. 

Because the notice of appeal in this case appeared to be untimely, we ordered Leifeste to

show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Leifeste filed a

response in which he contends the notice of appeal was timely filed because the appellate timeline

did not begin to run until either November 2, 2009 (the date the judgment was signed) or November

5, 2009 (the date the judgment was filed of record). We disagree. The starting point for calculating

the timeliness of the notice of appeal in a defendant’s direct appeal from a judgment of conviction

is “the day the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court,” not the day the judgment was signed

or filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109-10 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993); O’Conner v. State, 266 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d).

This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal that was not timely filed. Slaton

v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Alexander M. BERRIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-754

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5097 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5097

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to require the termination of 
         inactive investigations after a period of six months.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2016

Mrs. Brooks of Indiana (for herself, Mr. Lance, Mr. Harper, Mr. Olson, 
 Mr. Pompeo, and Mr. Burgess) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to require the termination of 
         inactive investigations after a period of six months.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Start Taking Action on Lingering 
Liabilities Act'' or the ``STALL Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF INACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS.

    Section 20 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57b-1) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(j) Termination of Inactive Investigation.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
        covered investigation shall terminate at the expiration of the 
        six-month period beginning on the date on which a covered 
        verifiable written communication is sent by the Commission.
            ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if--
                    ``(A) an additional covered verifiable written 
                communication is sent by the Commission during the 
                period described in paragraph (1); or
                    ``(B) the Commission votes to extend the covered 
                investigation before the expiration of such period.
            ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                    ``(A) Covered investigation.--The term `covered 
                investigation' means an investigation conducted 
                pursuant to this section in which the Commission has 
                notified the person that is the subject of the 
                investigation by verifiable written communication.
                    ``(B) Covered verifiable written communication.--
                The term `covered verifiable written communication' 
                means a verifiable written communication relating to an 
                investigation conducted pursuant to this section that 
                is sent to the person that is the subject of the 
                investigation.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4838 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow the issuance 

of tax-exempt bonds any proceeds of which are used to provide professional entertainment facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2016 

Mr. RUSSELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 

the issuance of tax-exempt bonds any proceeds of which 

are used to provide professional entertainment facilities. 

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 ‘‘No Tax Subsidies for 

5 Stadiums Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4838 IH

1 SEC. 2. TAX EXEMPT FINANCING OF PROFESSIONAL EN2 TERTAINMENT FACILITIES DISALLOWED. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 149 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(h) NO PORTION OF BONDS MAY BE USED FOR

7 PROFESSIONAL ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 103(a) shall not 

9 apply to any bond issued as part of an issue any 

10 proceeds of which are to be used to provide a profes11 sional entertainment facility. 

12 ‘‘(2) PROFESSIONAL ENTERTAINMENT FACIL13 ITY.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘pro14 fessional entertainment facility’ means any facility 

15 (and appurtenant real property) which, during at 

16 least 5 days during any calendar year, is used— 

17 ‘‘(A) as a stadium or arena for profes18 sional sports exhibitions, games, or training, or 

19 ‘‘(B) as a venue for any entertainment 

20 event— 

21 ‘‘(i) the live audience for which ex22 ceeds 100 individuals, and 

23 ‘‘(ii) any net earnings from which 

24 inure to the benefit of an individual or any 

25 entity other than— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4838 IH

1 ‘‘(I) the United States, any State 

2 or political subdivision thereof, any 

3 possession of the United States, or 

4 any agency or instrumentality of any 

5 of the foregoing, or 

6 ‘‘(II) an organization which is de7 scribed in paragraph (3), (4), (5), (6), 

8 (7), (10), (19), or (23) of section 

9 501(c) and exempt from tax under 

10 section 501(a) or is a political organi11 zation (as defined in section 

12 527(e)(1)).’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall apply to obligations issued after the date 

15 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - (-)science_science(2)
              - products_publications(9)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)

## By Location

              - (-)alabama(2)
              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(5)
              - california(12)
              - colorado(3)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(3)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(14)
              - north carolina(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(3)
              - washington(7)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Project        August 30, 2019        Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Monitoring and Assessment Program Development

Activity        September 18, 2019        Topobathymetric Elevation Model of Mobile Bay, Alabama
Exhibit 31-1
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Barry. L. Slider, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of First South  Bancorp,
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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  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 registrant, 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  registrant,  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;

     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors and to the audit committee of the  registrant'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  registrant'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 registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

                                      s/Barry L. Slider
Dated:   November 30, 2006            ------------------------------------------
                                      Barry L. Slider
                                      President & Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPERIOR COUR T OF THE STATE OF DE LAWARE

IN RE: ASBESTOS LITI GATION JILL DUDLEY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank P. Dudley, and JILL DUDLEY, individually, Plaintiff,

v. FMC CORP. , et al.,
Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. N13C

- 12

- 227 ASB ) ) ) ) ) ) August 1 8 , 2017

Upon Defendant FMC ’s Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED

. Plaintiff, Jill Dudley, plead s that her husband Frank Dudley (hereinafter “ Mr. Dudley ”) performed work on pumps from 1966 through 1967 while employed at Cam Chemical Company in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Dudley testified that at least ten pumps were manufactured by Chicago Pump, and he would break down the pumps and repair the gaskets. Mr. Dudl ey stated that he worked on the pumps one to three times per week. He also testified that people worked on the pumps around him one to ten times per week. Def endant mainly argues that Plaintiff cannot prove product
identification or causation under Michi gan law. Under Michigan law “[t]hethreshold requirement of any asbestos case is proof that an injured plaintiff was

exposed to an asbestos

- containing product for which a defendant is responsible.” 1 Thereafter, Michigan law applies the substantial factor test for causation, consistent with the Second Restatement of Torts, such that a plaintiff must introduce evidence that demonstrates his exposure to the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in producing his injury, i.e., significant in terms of in tensity and when viewed in the scope of his entire work history and the number and extent of other contributing
factors. 2 “To survive summary disposition, the plaintiff must show that the product was used in the specific area where he worked within the w orkplace.” 3 However,
before the Court can even address the causation standard, Plaintiff has not offered evidence, beyond speculation, that Mr. Dudley worked with an asbestos containing product manufactured by Defendant. Mr. Dudley did not know the main te nance history of the pumps, nor identify the man ufacturer of the replacement parts. Without additional evidence, a reasonable jury could not infer that Defendant is responsible

1 Barlow v. John Crane

- Houdaille , 477 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). 2 Id. (citing Brisboy v. Fibreboard Corp. , 418 N.W.2d 650, 653

- 54 (Mich. 1988)); Allen v. Owens

- Corning Fiberglas Corp. , 571 N.W.2d 530, 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). 3 Barlow , 477 N.W.2d at 136 (citing Roberts v. Owens

- Corning Fiberglas Corp. , 726 F.Supp. 172, 174 (W.D. Mich. 1989)); see Roberts , 726 F. Supp. at 174 (“Therefore, the Court must determine whether a reasonable factfinder could legitimately infer from the material s before it that defendants’ asbestos products were used in the engine or auxiliary machine rooms of the various naval vessels where the decedent served.”).for Mr. Dudley’s injuries. Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, Defendant

FMC Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED

. IT IS
SO ORDERED. 

### /s/ Calvin L. Scott The Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
Christopher WHEELER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2307

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Chance M. CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1059

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.