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

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Teton Dam flood of June 1976, Moreland quadrangle, Idaho      

      January 1, 1976    

View Plate

The failure of the Teton Dam caused extreme flooding along the Teton River, Henrys Fork, and Snake River in southeastern Idaho on June 5-8, 1976. No flooding occurred downstream from American Falls Reservoir. The inundated areas and maximum water-surface elevations are shown in a series of 17 hydrologic atlases. The aea covered by the atlases extends from Teton Dam downstream to American Falls Reservoir, a distance of 100 miles. The extent of flooding shown on the maps was obtained by field inspections and aerial photographs made during and immediately after the flood. There may be small isolated areas within the boundaries shown that were not flooded, but the identification of these sites was beyond the scope of the study. The elevation data shown are mean-sea-level elevations of high-water marks identified in the field. This particular map (in the 17-map series) shows conditions in the Moreland quadrangle. (Woodard-USGS)

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

#### Idaho Water Science Center

230 Collins Rd.Boise, ID83702-4520United States

Phone: (208) 387-1300

(208) 387-1372

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Moreland Quadrangle
                  - Idaho

View All **
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 00-20251 Summary Calendar

_____________________ DAVIS MARK CONRAD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE; JOHN DOE, Individually, JANE DOE, Individually; WILLIAM MICHAEL STODDARD; LENORA GRANATO, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. H-99-CV-2144)

_______________________________________________________

November 15, 2000 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *2



### The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by that court in its thorough memorandum and order of March 2, 2000. Conrad’s claims are for Privacy Act violations by the U.S. Customs Service, first for disclosing his OWCP claim to its review committee, and second for failing to correct his file in impugning his credibility by the 1995 reassignment letter. Neither claim has merit. Conrad furnished the OWCP document to Customs, and his attorney explicitly waived any privacy claim. Furthermore, disclosure to the review committee was permitted by the Privacy Act. The regulations of the Department of Labor are not relevant under these circumstances. The Customs Service did comply with the Privacy Act by removing the 1995 letter from its files, and Conrad settled that issue by the December 1996 agreement. AFFIRMED.
Alexis CANTORE, a minor, by and through her natural parents and legal guardians, Felix and Barbara Cantore; and Felix Cantore and Barbara Cantore, individually, Appellants, v. WEST BOCA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., d/b/a West Boca Medical Center; and Variety Children's Hospital, d/b/a Miami Children's Hospital, Appellees.

No. 4D13-1985

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 8, 2018]

Philip M. Burlington and Andrew A. Harris of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Linda A. Alley of Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Michael K. Mittelmark and Meghan K. Zavoina of Michaud, Mittelmark, Marowitz & Asrani, P.L.L.C., Boca Raton, for appellee West Boca Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a West Boca Medical Center.

Elliot H. Scherker, Julissa Rodriguez and Stephanie L. Varela of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, and Norman M. Waas and Scott E. Solomon of Falk, Waas, Hernandez, Cortina, Solomon & Bonner, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee Variety Children's Hospital, d/b/a Miami Children's Hospital.

***ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT***

Per Curiam.

*130Pursuant to the mandate issued by our supreme court, we reverse and remand for a new trial in accordance with *Cantore v. West Boca Medical Center, Inc.* , 242 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 2018).

Warner, May and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Clifford W. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-756

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## 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(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
Walter ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5124

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 533 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.533

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen

                                 An Act

 
To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma at 
           the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.
    The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to surrender the charter 
of incorporation issued to that tribe and ratified by its members on 
June 1, 1940, pursuant to the Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et 
seq.; commonly known as the ``Oklahoma Welfare Act''), is hereby 
accepted and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 105
          - [Docket Nos. TSA-2006-24191; USCG-2006-24196]

### Correction

Document E8-10244 was inadvertently published in the Notices section of Wednesday, May 7, 2008, beginning on page 25757. It should have appeared in the Rules and Regulations section.

[FR Doc. Z8-10244 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit No. 32.1


Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Catalyst Lighting Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Dennis H. Depenbusch and Brady Basil, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively, of Catalyst Lighting Group, Inc., certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


February 17, 2005                              /s/ Dennis H. Depenbusch
                                               ------------------------
                                               Dennis H. Depenbusch
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                               /s/ Brady Basil
                                               ------------------------
                                               Brady Basil
                                               Chief Financial Officer

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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-7118



# 
K ENNETH J OSEPH F ARWELL ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-01-13-A, CA-02-728-AM) Submitted: September 16, 2002 Decided: October 10, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Kenneth Joseph Farwell, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald J. Smagala,OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Kenneth Joseph Farwell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), which the district court construed as Farwell’s first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and his motion for reconsideration. The district court did not give Farwell notice and an opportunity to respond before recharacterizing his motion as one filed under § 2255, as required by this court’s recent decision in United States v. Emmanuel , 288 F.3d 644 (4th Cir. 2002). We therefore grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s orders, and remand in light of Emmanuel for the district court to provide Farwell with notice of its intention torecharacterize his filing and an opportunity for him to respond by proceeding with the recharacterization as a § 2255 motion or by electing to have the district court address the merits of his § 2241 petition. See id. at 649-50. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED 2 U NITED S TATES v. F ARWELL
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 41323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-30803]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98-ASW-42]


Revision of Class E Airspace; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

Correction

    In rule document 98-19421, beginning on page 39233, in the issue of 
Wednesday, July 22, 1998, make the following corrections.


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

    1. On page 39234, in the the second column, under ASW TX E5 Dallas-
Fort Worth, TX [Revised], in the 21st line, ``Celburne'' should read 
``Cleburne''.
    2. On the same page in the third column, in the ninth line, 
``each'' should read ``east''.
    3. On the same page in the same column, in the 33rd line, 
``bering'' should read ``bearing''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Paulo MUSIATE-KELLY and Eloy Soto Alejandre, Appellants, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-2103

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert MASEL and Tzipora Masel, Appellants, v. MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P., Appellee.

No. 4D18-1227

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, Brian. P. MacDonald, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Sunoco Partners LLC, the general partner of
the registrant Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P., certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ BRIAN P. MACDONALDName:  Brian P. MacDonaldTitle:    Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:    February 29, 2012
STATE of Louisiana v. Nathan R. DELONG

No. 2017-KP-0840

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 31, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF GRANT**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied access to the courts by an arbitrary and unjustified enforcement of the uniform rules governing the filing of applications in the court of appeal, and thus shows no error in the Third Circuit's denial of writs on technical grounds. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
DOOLEYMACK CONSTRUCTORS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. VICTORIA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1519

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(19)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(2)
              - alaska(9)
              - arizona(5)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(30)
              - colorado(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(5)
              - hawaii(18)
              - idaho(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(4)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - mississippi(4)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - north carolina(3)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - puerto rico(3)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(14)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - (-)virginia(1)
              - washington(10)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        April 26, 2018        National Liaison Committee Meeting: Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
Harvey L. LINEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4035 CASE NO.: 2D16-3691

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 04, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Shawnie Okeith RIGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Rust Engineering Company et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Chemung County,

August 1, 1973.

*Sayles, Evans, Brayton, Palmer S Tifft (Edward B. Hoffman*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Harpending, Fox, Buck, Gleckner & Danaher*for Bust Engineering Company, defendant. *Charles Swan*and *Ralph S. Cramer*for Brown & Kerr, Inc., defendant. *Coughlin, Dermody & Guy (Richard B. Long*of counsel), for GAF Corporation, defendant. *Donovan, Graner, Davidson é Burns*for J. G. White Engineering Corporation, third-party defendant.

Paul J. Yesawich, Jr., J.

This is a suit by the owner of a recently constructed food processing plant against the general contractor, the roofing subcontractor and the manufacturer and supplier of roofing material and its surety. The manufacturer and supplier, defendant GAF Corporation, moves to dismiss so much of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action as is based on breach of warranty on the ground that it was not commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued pursuant to igection 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

*921Plaintiff’s specifications called for a 20-year bonded or guaranteed roof. Pursuant to an August 18,1964 purchase order which had been submitted to the Buberoid Company (GAF’s predecessor), GAF delivered roofing materials and supplies to the roofing subcontractor at the plant site in Horseheads, New York. Work on the roof commenced in 1964. The last delivery by GAF was apparently made on or about July 2,1965. In 1967 leaks appeared in the roof. Defendant GAF made certain repairs, but in 1969 determined that the leaks were due to causes other than the natural elements, and declined to make further repairs. The action herein was instituted in March of 1971.

The moving defendant argues that the warranty cause of action accrued after September 27,1964, the effective date of the Uniform Commercial Code and therefore the suit is time barred for it is subject to the Uniform Commercial Code’s four-year Statute of Limitations. However, the operative date for determining whether the Uniform Commercial Code or precode law applies is the date when the transaction was *entered into.*

(Uniform Commercial Code, § 10-102, subd. [2].) Since here the transaction was entered into before the date when the Uniform Commercial Code became effective in this State (Uniform Commercial Code, § 10-105), the preoode six-year period of limitation applies (CPLR 213, subd. 2), and inasmuch as the transaction was not completed until July 2, 1965, the last date when delivery was made, this action is riot time-barred. *(Mendel*v. *Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.,*25 N Y 2d 340; *Lewis*v. *Royle & Sons,*37 A D 2d 639; *Kakargo*v. *Grange Silo Co.,*11 A D 2d 796.)

Motion denied, submit order.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2009 of MiddleBrook Pharmaceuticals,
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.
  /s/ David BeckerDavid BeckerExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, and Acting President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer and principal financial officer)