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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(12)
              - (-)products_web_tools(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - (-)indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(2)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Data Access        March 4, 2019        National Water Information System (NWIS) Mapper
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

23501

Vol. 63, No. 82

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL–5881–3]

Direct Final Rule Amending the Test

Procedures for Heavy–Duty Engines,

and Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks

and the Amending of Emission

Standard Provisions for Gaseous

Fueled Vehicles and Engines

Correction

In rule document 97–23352,

beginning on page 47114, in the issue of

Friday, September 5, 1997, make the

following correction:

Appendix I to Part 86 [Corrected]

On page 47136, in the first column,

footnote 1 should be added to read as

follows: ‘‘1Closed throttle motoring.’’

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VT-006-01-1219a; A-1-FRL-5998-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Vermont; VOC Regulations

Correction

In rule document 98–10724,

beginning on page 19825, in the issue of

Wednesday, April 22, 1998, make the

following correction:

§ 52.2381 [Corrected]

On page 19829, in § 52.2381, in the

table, in the first column, in the 17th

line, ‘‘5–252.13’’ should read ‘‘5–

253.13’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Wayne R. CLAUSEN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Susan A. CLAUSEN, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Case No. 5D16-4114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed August 17, 2018

John N. Bogdanoff and Shannon McLin Carlyle, of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Andrew Graf and Dusty Twyman, of Rohe Twyman, P.A., Winter Garden, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Clausen (the Former Husband) appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered by the trial court, and Susan Clausen (the Former Wife) cross-appeals. We affirm without discussion all issues raised in the appeal and all issues raised in the cross-appeal, except issues related to the alimony award. As to that award, we reverse and remand for further proceedings because the trial court erred in failing to include income imputed to the Former Wife in its calculations and erred in failing to consider the child-related expenses being incurred by the Former Husband.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Ernesto ENCHAUTEGUI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3202

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is voluntarily dismissed.
Case 22-11595-RAM Doc 26 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 4
Case 22-11595-RAM Doc 26 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 4
Case 22-11595-RAM Doc 26 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 4
Case 22-11595-RAM Doc 26 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 4
October 10, 201 2 

Dear Mr. Danielson, 

After consulting with three different contractors, I was told by each that my present 

furnace which is in need of extensive repairs, might last anywhere from several months 

to two or three years. 

It was also explained to me that by next May I would be required to install a high-energy 

efficient furnace. Because of the configuration of my home to do so would require 

considerable, costly and unsightly renovations. 

This left me with a choice of putting in an 80% efficient furnace now, when the furnace 

might last another two or three years, or spending almost double that amount later if J 

need a new one. 

It is my understanding that contractors might be able to get waivers. However, I feel like 

the lady in an article I recently read. (What about this old s house that makes it 

impractical to install the PVC venting required for the 90-plus percent furnaces. Let's do 

a waiver in those situations. How do I get a waiver when it is 10 p.m. at night and 

grandma is freezing?) And yes, I am a grandma 

What about getting these waivers now and having them on hand to use when needed? 

I would appreciate your thoughts on how I should handle this situation. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Royce 

376 Medina Dr. 

St. Louis, Mo. 

63122 

314-965-2897 

m.royce@sbcglobaJ.net
Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-214144) and Amendment No. 575 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 7, 2017, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.












/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


August 4, 2017
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-66648) and  Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-34238, 333-34240, 333-55096 and 333-82276) of Edison Schools Inc. of
our report dated August 22, 2001, except with respect to Note 2 for which the
date is May 14, 2002, relating to the financial statements, which appears in
Amendment No.1 to 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders of Edison Schools Inc. on
Form 10-K/A of Edison Schools Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2001.



                                               /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                               --------------------------------
                                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Melville, NY
June 19, 2002
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jason D. Reid, Chief Executive Officer and President, and I, Joe A. Rodriguez, Chief Financial
Officer of Gold Resource Corporation (the Company) certify that:

1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report.

Date:
November 7, 2013



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jason D. Reid                                  
|Jason D. Reid Chief Executive Officer and
President

Date: November 7, 2013



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ Joe A. Rodriguez                    
|Joe A. Rodriguez Chief Financial
Officer
## 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

              - arizona(1)

## By Year

Illustrations        December 31, 2019        Arizona Landsat State Mosaic
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6520** 

SIDDHANTH SHARMA , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. UNKNOWN RESPONDENT; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:15

- hc

- 02209

- BO )

Submitted : December 30, 2016 Decided: January 6, 2017

Before NIEMEYER , KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Siddhanth Sharma , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Siddhanth Sharma , a state prisoner **,** seeks to appeal the district court’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ( 2012 ) petition challenging his pretrial detention . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

ce rtificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (20 12 ). A certificate of ap pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jur ists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedu ral grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the re cord and conclude that Sharma’s petition is moot because he was convicted after filing his petition. See Jackson v. Clements , 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam)
. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and3 dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of 724 Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John J. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title
18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|                  |  |    
|----------------- |  | ---
|Date: May 5, 2004 |  |    
|                  |  | By:

---



QuickLinks
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 AVALON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      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 the report is being prepared;b.
    
    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; andc.
    
    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.
  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; andb.
    
    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/ Kenneth C. Carter Ph.D.Kenneth C. Carter, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
Motion GRANTED and Order filed July 19, 2019. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00530-CV

____________

IN RE QUANTUM HOSPITALITY, LLC, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-45760

ORDER

On July 8, 2019, relator Quantum Hospitality, LLC, filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Donna 

Roth, Judge of the 295th District Court, in Harris County, Texas, to set aside her 

January 14, 2019, March 8, 2019, May 16, 2019, and April 1, 2019 orders entered 
in trial court number 2015-45760, styled Stephen Bouche v. Quantum Hospitality, 

LLC. 

Relator also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On July 9, 2019, relator asked this court to stay the April 

1, 2019 order, reflected in the transcript of the oral hearing on that date, in the trial 

court pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and 

issue the following order:

We ORDER the April 1, 2019 order, reflected in the transcript of the oral 

hearing on that date, entered in trial court cause number 2015-45760, Stephen

Bouche v. Quantum Hospitality, LLC, STAYED until a final decision by this court 

on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Jewell.
OCEAN DRIVE RESTAURANT LB, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0454

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MARCH 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN LAMARR ANDRES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. MARSHALL, Correctional Officer at RJ Donovan; et al., Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 56057 D.C. No. 3:13

- cv - 01733

- DMS

BGS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016 **
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Kevin Lamarr Andres appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unlawful strip

* This disposition is not approp riate 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

APR 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56057

search and denial of due process. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6 )). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson , 547 F.3d at 1058

- 59, and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Andres’ strip search claim against
defendant Marshall because Andres failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in a proper manner

. See Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (“Proper exhaustion [of administrative remedies] demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules[.]”). Dismissal of Andres’ due process claim against defenda nt Briggs alleging improper processing of grievances was proper because Andres “lack[s] a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v.
Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Andres’ claim against Briggs without granting leave to amend because amendment would be
futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th

1 We address Andres’ excessive force claim in a concurrently filed o pinion.3 15

- 56057

Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review).
The distri ct court did not abuse its discretion by denying Andres’ motions to appoint counsel because Andres did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
See Terrell v. Brewer , 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel). We reject as without merit Andres’ contentions regarding discovery because the record was sufficiently developed to resolve his claims.
Andres’ motion s to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 16 and 17) are granted.
Andres’ motion to amend and supplement claim (Docket Entry No. 16) is
denied.
And res’ motions to appoint counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 16 and 20) are denied.
Andres’ motion to withdraw (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied as moot

. Appellees shall bear the costs on appeal

. AFFIRMED.
*'f'-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

''-\ i\- I'l5 

4iit[ + «4<*>t")<*t4>4<*>(<>(<>(<>t<t + *')<*4<*>(<%*4'>(<>l<«*4(>^ + >(< 

In The Matter Of: 

O.W.L. FLY, INC. 

F AA Docket No. CP1 OS WOO 19 

FAA Case No. 2010SW910070 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

*4<4<*i^4<*>l>>(<>fc*4<>f4<>C>K*«t>f<<K + + >t<4<>([4<4<*)t<**4<>l<** 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in accordance with Section 13.215 of the 

Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, hereby withdraws its complaint and a hearing is 

no longer required. Dated this 11^ day of October 2011. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DAVID L. DONNELL 

Regional-Geunael 

Soutfiwest Reaion 

Grsaory S Lan^ 

(817)222-5083 

FAX (817) 222-5945 or 5092 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date FAXED a copy and sent by Certified Mail - Return 

Receipt Requested, an original and one conformed copy of the Complainant's Withdraw of 

Complaint, in the case of FAA Administrator v. O.W.L. Fly, Inc., FAA Docket No. 

CP10SW0019, addressed to: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

I further certify that I have this date FAXED a copy and sent by Certified Mail - Return 

Receipt Requested, one copy of the Complainant's Withdraw of Complaint addressed to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

I further certify that 1 have this date sent via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested, 

and regular U.S. mail, one copy of the Complainant's Withdraw of Complaint addressed to: 

O.W.L. Fly, Inc. 

c/o Mr. George T. Silva, Jr. 

28436 Bonn Mountain 

San Antonio, TX 78260 

Marquifta Robinson, Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

Dated:
# C_2021010EN.01006501.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/65

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards the identification of taxable persons in Northern Ireland’

(COM(2020) 360 final – 2020/0165 (CNS))

(2021/C 10/11)

| Council referral | 28.8.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted at plenary | 29.10.2020 |
| Plenary session No | 555 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 209/0/9 |

Council referral

28.8.2020

Legal basis

Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted at plenary

29.10.2020

Plenary session No

555

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

209/0/9

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the common system of value added in its earlier opinions on the VAT package I, adopted on 14 March 2018 (1) and the VAT package II, adopted on 23 May 2018 (2), it decided, at its 555th plenary session of 27, 28 and 29 October 2020 (meeting of 29 October 2020), by 209 votes with 9 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned documents.

Brussels, 29 October 2020.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 6.7.2018, p. 40.

1

(2)  OJ C 283, 10.8.2018, p. 35.

2

---
MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PIZARRO SCHOOL FOR MONTESSORI LEARNING, LLC., etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s)

CASE NO.: 3D18-0807

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JUNE 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.