alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-10508]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL 325-6]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans

CFR Correction

    In title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 52 
(Sec. 52.1019 to end), revised as of July 1, 1997, in appendix D to 
part 52, on page 610, in the first and second columns, equations d-1 
and d-2 were inadvertently omitted. Additionally, the second line in 
the legend for Equation D-2 was incorrectly printed. The missing 
equations and corrected line should read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 52--Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From 
Stationary Sources by Continuous Monitors

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08MY98.000

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08MY98.001

* * * * *
<SUP>t</SUP>.975 = <SUP>t</SUP>1-a/2, and
* * * * *

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Refined conservation strategies for Golden-winged Warblers in the West Virginia highlands with implications for the broader avian community      

      November 1, 2017    

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) populations in the Appalachian Mountains region of North America are imperiled, warranting species-specific conservation. However, management for Golden-winged Warblers can affect both early-successional and forest species, many of which are also declining in the region. We conducted point counts in sites representing a range of successional stages within the Golden-winged Warbler's breeding range in West Virginia, USA, during 2008–2015. We identified plausible models of Golden-winged Warbler density using covariates at 4 spatial scales representing annual dispersal (5-km radius), extraterritorial movement (1.5-km radius), intraterritorial movement (100-m radius), and local resource utilization (11.3-m radius). Golden-winged Warbler density peaked at an intermediate elevation at the 1.5-km radius scale, but was negatively associated with 100-m radius minimum elevation. Density was positively associated with 100-m radius shrubland cover. Southerly latitudes were associated with higher densities when modeled alone, but there was no association when controlling for other covariates. We then examined the relationship between covariates from these plausible models and avian community structure using canonical correspondence analysis to assess the value of Golden-winged Warbler conservation for the broader avian community. We identified 5 species likely to benefit from management for Golden-winged Warblers and 21 species likely to be affected positively or negatively to varying degrees depending on their affinity for early-successional vegetation communities. Golden-winged Warblers were plotted higher along the 100-m shrubland cover gradient than any other bird species, suggesting that they may be the most shrubland area–sensitive songbird in our study area. However, the species also requires heavily forested landscapes. Therefore, a species-specific conservation strategy that balances shrubland (patches of 9–13 ha in size, comprising 15% of the landscape) and contiguous forest area (≥75% of the landscape) could concurrently meet the needs of Golden-winged Warblers and the 26 other species identified.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - West Virginia

View All **
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Australia

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_science(12)
              - products_data(16)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(349)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_audio(16)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(14)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - multimedia_before_after(4)
              - multimedia_image(115)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(92)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(20)
              - multimedia_video(47)
              - multimedia_video-149194(27)
              - multimedia_video-149195(16)
              - multimedia_video-149198(2)
              - (-)documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149220(2)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(3)
              - news_news-149249(3)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - news_other_news(8)
              - other_basic-42(3)

## By Location

## By Year

NMIC Mineral Report        May 4, 2021        The Mineral Industry of Australia, 2016 (XLSX)

NMIC Mineral Report        May 4, 2021        The Mineral Industry of Australia, 2016 (PDF)

NMIC Mineral Report        February 4, 2020        The Mineral Industry of Australia, 2015 (XLSX) Tables-Only Release

Supporting material        July 6, 2018        Australia Pacific Land Cover Characteristics Data Base Readme Version2

Supporting material        June 29, 2018        Australia/Pacific Land Cover Characteristics Data Base Version 2.0
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of GeoPharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mihir K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Mihir K. TanejaMihir K. Taneja Chief Executive Officer November 14, 2006




28
EX PARTE M.B.

1160571 (2160010)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 68364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-11231]



[[Page 68364]]


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / 
Corrections
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 954


Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to the Denial, 
Suspension, or Revocation of Second-Class Mail Privileges

Correction

    In rule document 97-33480, beginning on page 66997, in the issue of 
Tuesday, December 23, 1997, in the third column, in the EFFECTIVE DATE: 
section, ``December 23, 1998'' should read ``December 23, 1997''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Omar HALL, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2479

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JUNE 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-11098-MAM

CHAPTER 7

ROBERT W. SZOSTAK

Debtor.

____________________________________/

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DOCKET ENTRY 89

Debtor, Robert W. Szostak, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby notifies the 

Court of this Notice of Withdrawal of Docket Entry 89 (ECF 89), filed on March 21, 2023.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was furnished electronically where 

available or by regular mail to all parties listed on the attached list, this 22nd day of 

March , 2023.

I hereby certify that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I 

am in compliance with the additional qualification to practice in this court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A).

RAPPAPORT OSBORNE & RAPPAPORT, PLLC

Attorneys for Debtor

Suite 203, Squires Building

1300 North Federal Highway

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Telephone: (561) 368-2200

BY: /s/ Steven S. Newburgh 

 STEVEN S. NEWBURGH, ESQ.

 FL Bar No. 348619

SERVICE LIST:

To All Parties on the attached matrix

Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 91 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 3
	

	




	


	
	

	





 !"##
$

%%&'%%()
*%"
+&%

*
,	-
	

)
	
."
,	"(%%%%/%+0
	
12%(+&%

3"$

4,	%5%/5(6 -4%&%

"	

	
),.
$	
 	1
$	




 !"
%/'/"
'%%'

%%()
*%),.	.)%/'/ "
47/'%%'

"
,	"(%%%%/%+





	891
1	

"
''&"
%*
,-

:
;8

3
$

- '''&*1
8<4'+&%3"$)+&((









	.
$
8	.
1

"
6%+"
'%/'"
&/(

*

,)*-(//6%+
,$,:+%'%/'202'







:*1=	.-	$

8
3"$
	


	

(3

*+/&& *,
&
"

,	

,
0>+%&&&6
#
)+++(&&&"

.*,
%&'

"	

0?&'(+&/6







<*4	,@A"00B# 4=0-=0C"	

	
),.


(*3"7+'%&&"

.*,
%&'

*,
%&+2 0-:++&+'%"	

0?&'(+&/6


$
)&6+





4
8


		.
-	1?1	#
	),		

"7/'6
#.*$
";;;,			,
$

.	#
.=(%+&&&&+//	*D&&%%((C.#
.*+

"
.
"&%/6%
#
)+//





#
	3*E
1**0;,	

*-

:;8&&0).	:;8*,
%&

((
#
)+%%'+'

3"$)+&((6









4			.$

..	@A
,
,.
	

;

8




.

8
.
8


0


..	
.,	,
<*+%@A.).#1"%&&%@A@+A





"01

)

"1;8

B$E

=+&&







Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 91 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2 of 3
	

		


	


		








 !	"

!	
		
##


		
$

#%





Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 91 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Mihir K. Taneja, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GeoPharma, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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
quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying
officers 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)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)
and 15d-15(f)) 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 quarterly 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;



c) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal controls; and



|                         |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 14, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Mihir K. Taneja    
|                         |  |     |  | Mihir K. Taneja        
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



20
Paul I. MARX, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3048

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-59097; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-057]

### Correction

In notice document E8-30319 beginning on page 78412 in the issue of Monday, December 22, 2008, make the following correction:

On page 78412, the subject should read as set forth above.

[FR Doc. Z8-30319 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Opinion issued November 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00364-CV

———————————

BRANDY SILMAN, Appellant

V.

U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the 335th District Court

Bastrop County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 29,587

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Brandy Silman, proceeding pro se, appealed from the trial court’s 

final summary judgment, signed on February 25, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1(a)(1).

1

 However, appellant has failed to timely file her appellate brief. See 

 

1

The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals for 
2

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), 38.8(a)(1). After being notified by the Clerk of this Court 

on August 25, 2015, that her appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to timely 

file her appellate brief, appellant failed to timely respond. See id. at 38.8(a)(1), 

42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to 

timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.

 

the Third District of Texas to this Court pursuant to its docket equalization 

powers. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp. 2014) (“The supreme 

court may order cases transferred from one court of appeals to another at any time 

that, in the opinion of the supreme court, there is good cause for the transfer.”); 

Order Regarding Transfer of Cases From Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 

15–9054, ¶ II (Tex. Mar. 24, 2015). We are unaware of any conflict between the 

precedent of the Third Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant 

issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
As of May 1, 1996




 

 

 

 

 

July 6, 2007



Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.

28 Tanglewood Drive, West

Orchard Park, NY 14127



Dear Mr. Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.:



You and Servotronics, Inc. (the "Company") are parties to an Amended Employment Agreement, dated July 1, 2005 and ratified on June 30, 2006 pursuant to which you are employed by the Company. This letter confirms such Amended Employment Agreement and subsequent ratification and subsequent Amendments dated August 4, 2006 (the "Amended Agreement").



This letter will also confirm your agreement and that of the Company (pursuant to resolutions of the Board of Directors passed at a meeting held on June 29, 2007) to (i) amend Paragraph 1 of the Amended Agreement to delete "July 1, 2011" and insert in its place "July 1, 2012" and (ii) amend Paragraph 3 of the Amended Agreement to delete "$188,820" and insert in its place "$250,000" (to be effective May 1, 2007) subject to your acceptance which will be indicated by your signature below.



If the foregoing meets with your approval and you are willing to become bound hereby, please sign and return to the undersigned the enclosed copy of this letter.



Very truly yours,



SERVOTRONICS, INC.



/s/ Michael D. Trbovich



Michael D. Trbovich,

Corporate Secretary



 

ACCEPTED AND AGREED



	
/s/ Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.

Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.
	
7/6/07

Date
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5351 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5351

 To prohibit the transfer of any individual detained at United States 
                  Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2016

 Mrs. Walorski (for herself, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Zinke, 
and Ms. Stefanik) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the transfer of any individual detained at United States 
                  Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ANY TRANSFER OF ANY INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT 
              UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

    (a) Prohibition.--No amounts authorized to be appropriated or 
otherwise available for any department or agency of the United States 
Government may be used during the period specified in subsection (b) to 
transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within 
the United States, its territories, or possessions, or to any foreign 
country or entity, of any individual detained at Guantanamo.
    (b) Specified Period.--The period specified in this subsection is 
the period that--
            (1) begins on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) ends on the earlier of--
                    (A) the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing 
                appropriations for military activities of the 
                Department of Defense for fiscal year 2017; or
                    (B) January 1, 2017.
    (c) Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means an individual 
located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of 
October 1, 2009, who--
            (1) is not a national of the United States (as defined in 
        section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
        U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) or a member of the Armed Forces of the 
        United States; and
            (2) is--
                    (A) in the custody or under the control of the 
                Department of Defense; or
                    (B) otherwise detained at United States Naval 
                Station, Guantanamo Bay.
                                 <all>
```
William Carl MONROE Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4418

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 14 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Harry Mey er Kat z
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 31 , 20 12 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 30 , 20 12 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Fo rm er fed eral in mat e Harry Katz ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s 1
pe ti ti on fora writ of e rro r co ram no bi s. W e ag ree wit h th e co ur t th at Katz m ay no t

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.rai se in a co ram no bi s pe ti ti on th e sa m e cl ai m s th at he pr ev io us ly li ti ga te d in hi s 28

U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n. See Sawy er v. W hi tl ey , 50 5 U.S. 33 3, 33 8 (1 99 2) (s uc ces si ve ha be as pe ti ti on rai si ng id en ti cal gr ou nd s as pr io r pe ti ti on m us t ge ne ral ly be di sm is se d) ; Uni te d St at es v. Co m ach o- Bo rd es , 94 F.3 d 11 68 , 11 73 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (co ram no bi s rel ie f is su bs ta nt ia ll y eq ui va le nt to ha be as rel ie f, an d pr in ci pl es ba rri ng
su cces si ve pe ti ti on s ap pl y ); Azzo ne v. Uni te d St at es , 34 1 F.2 d 41 7, 41 8- 19 (8 th Ci r. 19 65 ) (p er cu ria m ) (co ram no bi s pe ti ti on er is no t en ti tl ed to rev ie w of is su es th at were
co ns id ered an d reso lv ed eit he r on di rect ap pe al or i n § 22 55 m ot io n) . W e al so fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in d e n yi n g t he pe ti ti on wit ho ut a he ari ng or di sc ov ery. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Mack L. SHEDD, DOC #S41084, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2122

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.