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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Communications Plans

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(16)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(15)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(20)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(18)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - multimedia_video(135)
              - multimedia_video-149194(103)
              - multimedia_video-149195(14)
              - multimedia_video-149197(8)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - multimedia_video-149225(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(13)
              - other_basic-42(1)
              - other_basic-43(1)
              - other_basic-45(1)

## By Location

              - nebraska(1)
              - south carolina(2)
              - south dakota(6)

## By Year

Podcasts        August 28, 2023        Eyes on Earth Episode 102 – LANDFIRE 2022 Update

Podcasts        December 18, 2023        Eyes on Earth Episode 110 – Geospatial Information Response Team

Podcasts        February 26, 2024        Eyes on Earth Episode 113 – EROS Science Leader’s Vision

Podcasts        May 24, 2010        Social Media and the USGS Nebraska Water Science Center

Podcasts        October 17, 2007        Earth Science Week, Continued: Geologic Maps--The World Beneath Your Feet

Podcasts        October 8, 2013        ShakeOut Podcast 2013

Podcasts        March 6, 2023        Eyes on Earth Episode 91 – Intro to AmericaView

Podcasts        January 13, 2020        Eyes on Earth Episode 14 – Space Debris

Podcasts        July 12, 2010        USGS Hydrologic Investigation of West Africa's Congo River (part two)

Podcasts        June 1, 2020        Eyes on Earth Episode 26 – Satellite Constellations

Podcasts        November 30, 2020        Eyes on Earth Episode 39 – Brazil’s Water Use

Podcasts        January 26, 2010        USGS Hydrologic Investigation of West Africa's Congo River (part one)

Podcasts        February 8, 2021        Eyes on Earth Episode 43 - U.S.-Canada Water Use

Podcasts        September 20, 2021        Eyes on Earth Episode 59 - Landsat 9 Ground System

Podcasts        October 6, 2022        Eyes on Earth Episode 81 - Tour of the EROS Radome

Podcasts        November 16, 2008        Secretary Kempthorne and Mark Myers Share Thoughts on ShakeOut

Podcasts        July 31, 2023        Eyes on Earth Episode 99 – EROS 50th: Interns Who Stayed

Podcasts        May 13, 2022        Eyes on Earth Episode 74 – A Satellite Cross Calibration Mission

Interviews        January 5, 2010        Public Lecture: Flight from Extinction: Helping Whooping Cranes Survive

Interviews        July 5, 2011        Earth History of the National Capital Region – Volcanoes, Earthquakes & Dinosaurs... Oh My!
P.1 

OAR Box 1872 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

135) 11-1-188 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/26/2008 8:52:04 AM Sheet 135 of 204 
P.2 

" - \ 

A-90-19 

11-1-188 

AIR TOXICS and VOCs; 

Markets and Technology for Compliance 

Analysis, Control Technology, and 

Measurement 

A Market Research Report 

VOLUME I 

Analysis and Forecast 

otf\ 8 1 * 

Prepared By \ ^fi&S ^ 

The McIIvaine Company-- - - """""^ 

*RSf6iTt *W. MclCvainc Christine tftnnig 

S\(pa *Bagga Lynn Isaacson 

Salty MdCderman Joseph. Schwartz 

October 1991 

THE IcILVAIN mru COMPANY 

2970 BCARIA AVENUE • NORTHBROOK, ILLINOIS 60062 • USA 

Telephone: 708 • 272 • 0010 Telefiuc: 708 • 272 • 9673
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-1485.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 3, 1981.

Decided June 29, 1981.

As Corrected Aug. 19, 1981.

Peter Berzins, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.

Francis J. Diskin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for the U. S.

*412Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, TANG, Circuit Judge, and HEMPHILL,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Doe1 was convicted of conspiracy to import heroin and related substantive offenses. The government relied in part on the testimony of Richard Roe, a courier for the heroin importation scheme. On direct examination Roe testified that a quantity of heroin was delivered to him in Bangkok, Thailand by appellant’s wife and that he carried it from Bangkok to Seoul, Korea as a passenger on a commercial airline. He testified that he saw and spoke with Mrs. Doe on the flight from Bangkok to Seoul. The prosecutor then asked Roe whether he had made any arrangement to be contacted by Mrs. Doe while in the United States. Roe answered that he had given Mrs. Doe two phone numbers at which he could be reached.

On cross-examination, defense counsel asked if Roe had had a conversation with Mrs. Doe during the flight. After eliciting an affirmative answer, counsel inquired about details of the conversation. He then asked if there had been any discussion about appellant. The government objected. Defense counsel informed the court that Roe would testify that Mrs. Doe had said that her husband knew nothing about her drug importation activities. The trial court excluded the proffered testimony.

Appellant argues that the attempted cross-examination was within the scope of direct; that the government had “opened the door” with respect to Roe’s in-flight conversation with Mrs. Doe and the defense should have been permitted to elicit on cross-examination portions of the conversation favorable to appellant.

The government had asked only one question relating to Roe’s conversation with Mrs. Doe on the plane: “What, if any, arrangements did you make concerning contact with you in the United States after the operation was completed? Did you provide her with any point of contact?” Roe’s answer did not implicate appellant. The testimony appellant sought to elicit on cross-examination was unrelated to Roe’s direct testimony; it would not have served to correct a misleading impression left by selective questioning on direct. It was therefore not admissible under the doctrine of “curative admissibility.” *See United States v. Childs,*598 F.2d 169, 174 (D.C.Cir.1979); *United States v. Winston,*447 F.2d 1236, 1240 (D.C. Cir.1971).

AFFIRMED.

1

. This case arises from the same set of transactions as *United States v. Doe,*655 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1981). Pseudonyms were used in the opinion in *Doe*to protect certain parties to the case. *Id.,*at 922 n. 1. We do the same here to preserve the protection the majority in *Doe*sought to accomplish.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5280 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to lend 

Department of Defense farm equipment to eligible farmers, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2016 

Ms. GRAHAM (for herself and Mr. YOHO) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot 

program to lend Department of Defense farm equipment 

to eligible farmers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FARM EQUIPMENT 

4 SHARING PILOT PROGRAM. 

5 (a) SURVEY OF DOD EQUIPMENT.—Not later than 

6 one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

7 Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary 

8 of Agriculture, shall conduct a survey of the equipment 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5280 IH

1 of the Department of Defense to determine which such 

2 equipment— 

3 (1) would be appropriate for use by farmers 

4 through an equipment sharing program; and 

5 (2) could be used in an equipment sharing pro6 gram without jeopardizing military readiness. 

7 (b) PILOT PROGRAM.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense 

9 shall establish a pilot program under which the Sec10 retary shall lend equipment of the Department iden11 tified pursuant to the survey carried out under sub12 section (a) to eligible farmers. 

13 (2) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to borrow 

14 equipment under the pilot program, a farmer shall— 

15 (A) be a new and beginning farmer, as de16 termined by the Secretary; and 

17 (B) submit to the Secretary an application 

18 containing such information and assurances as 

19 the Secretary may require. 

20 (3) LOCATION.—The Secretary shall carry out 

21 the pilot program at locations determined by the 

22 Secretary. 

23 (4) DURATION.—The authority to carry out a 

24 pilot program under this section shall terminate on 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5280 IH

1 the date that is three years after the date of the 

2 commencement of the pilot program. 

3 (5) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the 

4 termination of the pilot program under this sub5 section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a re6 port on the pilot program that includes the rec7 ommendations of the Secretary with respect to the 

8 extension and expansion of the program. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Joseph SLAY v. PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTER, Jane Doe and ABC Insurance Company

NO. 2018-CC-0650

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 31, 2018

Denied.
SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA CHARTER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., and Polk Charter Academy, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT D

Case 22-12790-EPK Doc 112-4 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 3
Moses GARZA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 29, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

In Re:

EXCELL AUTO GROUP, INC.,

Debtor.

___________________________________/

CASE NO. 22-12790-EPK

Chapter 7

AGREED ORDER GRANTING WESTLAKE FLOORING COMPANY, LLC’S 

EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMPEL TURNOVER OF VEHICLES [ECF 92]

THIS MATTER came before the Court on June 1, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in West Palm Beach, 

Florida and again at a continued hearing on June 8, 2022 upon Interested Party and Creditor 

Westlake Flooring Company LLC’s Expedited Motion to Compel Turnover of Vehicles [ECF 92]. 

The Court, having reviewed the record, having heard the presentation of counsel, and noting 

Westlake Flooring Company, LLC and Karma of Broward’s agreement to the relief provided 

herein,

Erik P. Kimball, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 9, 2022.

Case 22-12790-EPK Doc 153 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 2
2

It is ORDERED that:

1. Interested Party and Creditor Westlake Flooring Company LLC’s Expedited 

Motion to Compel Turnover of Vehicles [ECF 92] is GRANTED. 

2. The Trustee is authorized and directed to turn over the Vehicles identified below to 

Westlake Flooring Company LLC forthwith and at a mutually agreeable time and place between 

them.

VIN Year Make/Model

50G6E4SSXMA000060 2021 Karma GS-6

50GK43SBXLA000070 2020 Karma Revero GT

50GK43SB6LA000129 2020 Karma Revero GT

###

Submitted by:

James R. Liebler, II, Esquire

Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo 

44 West Flagler Street, 25th Floor 

Miami, FL 33130 

Tel: (305) 379-0400 

Email: service@lgplaw.com 

Counsel for Westlake Services, LLC

Attorney James R. Liebler, II is directed to serve a copy of this Order on all parties listed below 

and file a Certificate of Service with the Court.

Case 22-12790-EPK Doc 153 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 2
October 14

, 2015

Mr. Lorenzo Lopez

2238 W. 18 th Place Chicago, ID 60608

Dear Mr. Lopez :

This is in response to your May 22

, 2015

, letter posted to the docket ( No. FAA

− 20 1 5

− 1875 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. You requested to conduct aerial videography, photography

, and cinematography using an unmanned aerial system

.

The information you submitted did not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81. On July 11 , 2015 , the FAA sent you a letter stating that we were unable to process your request

without further information. Specifically, we asked you t o provide the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of

the r elief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

On July 17

, 2015 , the FAA received additional information. The FAA has reviewed the

in formation and finds that you did not provide the sections from which you seek relief , how granting the request would provide a level of safety and why granting the request would be in the public interest.

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has close d your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information

, please resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.2

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director

, Office of Rulemaking
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,009
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             265
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     38,177
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          86,296
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        484,619
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 628,435
<DEPOSITS>                                     452,225
<SHORT-TERM>                                    82,354
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,471
<LONG-TERM>                                     42,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,671
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 628,435
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 32,018
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,219
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   421
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                37,658
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,627
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,333
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,325
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      280
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,475
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,943
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,943
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.48
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,735
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,309
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       60
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,530
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          6,530


</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**SECTION 302CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Rhett S. Williams, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VIANET.WORKS, Inc. (“VIA”);

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                                       VIA’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for VIA and have:

 

a)                                      designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to VIA, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)                                     evaluatedthe effectiveness of VIA’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

 

c)                                      disclosedin this report any change in VIA’s internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred duringVIA’s most recent fiscal quarter  thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, VIA’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

5.                                       VIA’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to VIA’s auditors andthe audit committee of VIA’s board of directors:

 

a)                                      allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect VIA’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)                                     anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in VIA’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August 13, 2004 |
|----------------------------|
| /s/ RHETT S. WILLIAMS      |   |
| Rhett S. Williams          |
| Chief Executive Officer    |

 

----
STATE EX REL. Clarence WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2018-KH-0159

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 31, 2018

*1085Reconsideration denied.
May 27, 2015 

 

Mr. Miguel Ahumada 

1270 Fierro Drive 

Ojai, CA 93023 

Dear Mr. Miguel Ahumada: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 15, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1016), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Big Data Analysis

Filters

              - multimedia_video(6)
              - multimedia_video-149194(3)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(10)
              - (-)arizona(7)
              - california(33)
              - colorado(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - hawaii(12)
              - idaho(3)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(3)
              - montana(3)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(4)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(22)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(3)
              - washington(10)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)

staff profileItiya P Aneece

Featured Films and Shorts        July 30, 2017        A Record of Change: Science and Elder Observations on the Navajo N.

Featured Films and Shorts        May 8, 2018        Advances in Streamgaging | Reach-Scale Monitoring Experiment (2 of 2)

Presentations and Events        September 22, 2020        Hydrography Updates for USFS Southwestern Region in AZ and NM

Featured Films and Shorts        February 21, 2010        The Heat is On: Desert Tortoises and Survival (Full video)

Presentations and Events        February 22, 2018        Ungulates in a Warmer Climate

Presentations and Events        March 25, 2021        PubTalk 3/2021 - A Jaguar's Field of Dreams
Travis BIVINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4294

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Michael BUCKNOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1144

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.