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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(188)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2005)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(228)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(15)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - (-)news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)

## By Year

Technical Announcement        September 2, 2015        What Happened to Early Mars’ Atmosphere? New Study Eliminates One Theory

Technical Announcement        July 22, 2021        Down to Earth: Complexities of Geology Affect Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse Hazard
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael Healy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Genesis Microchip Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genesis Microchip Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: June 10, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ MICHAEL HEALY
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Michael Healy Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by Genesis Microchip Inc. and will be retained by Genesis Microchip Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.38

                             AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE

      As of March 1, 2006, (the "Effective Date"), Schneider Electric S.A. a
French corporation and Square D Company a Delaware corporation, on behalf of
themselves and all of their subsidiaries (hereinafter collectively referred to
as "Schneider") and AMI Semiconductor, Inc. and AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA,
on behalf of themselves and all of their subsidiaries (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "AMI") have reached an agreement in principle ("Agreement") in
connection with 1) a full and final settlement of all disputes and claims, past
and future, known and unknown, involving certain application specific integrated
circuits supplied by AMI to Schneider and incorporated into Schneider's AFCI
circuit breakers (the "Claim") and 2) the continuation and growth of the amount
of business to be done between Schneider and AMI over the next five years
through a preferred supplier arrangement.

The Agreement shall be fully documented by a subsequent and binding Settlement
Agreement and a subsequent and binding Preferred Supplier Agreement to be
negotiated in good faith by the parties after the Effective Date,

The Settlement Agreement shall include a mutual release and cash consideration
in the amount of $5,000,000 ($1,300,000 of which shall be paid on or before
March 15, 2006 and the remainder of which shall be paid within 5 business days
after the execution of the Settlement Agreement) representing the full and final
amount to be paid to settle the Claim.

<PAGE>

The Preferred Supplier Agreement shall include the necessary provisions to
implement the terms described generally in Exhibit A hereto.

This Agreement is binding upon the parties as of the Effective Date and this
Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware.

SQUARE D COMPANY/                          AMI SEMICONDUCTOR, INC./AMI
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC S.A.                    SEMICONDUCTOR BELGIUM BVBA

By: /s/ DAVID D. PETRADIS                  By: /s/ DAVID A. HENRY
  Its:_CEO_______________________            Its:__CFO_______________________
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Competitive Companies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henri Hornby, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Henri Hornby                                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Henri Hornby, Chief Executive Officer and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|

|   | Principal Accounting Officer |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | September 13, 2006 |
|--------|--------------------|
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company, Florida corporations, Appellants, v. MAY NURSERY, INC., Nathan Wilder, and Damarlon Deon Debose, Appellees.

Nos. 1D17-1207 1D17-1397

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020056EN.01001001.xml

| 19.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/10

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9740 — ISQ/Rubis/Rubis Terminal)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 56/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | I Squared Capital Advisors LLC (‘ISQ’, United States), |
| --- | --- |

—

I Squared Capital Advisors LLC (‘ISQ’, United States),

| — | Rubis SCA (‘Rubis’, France), |
| --- | --- |

—

Rubis SCA (‘Rubis’, France),

| — | Rubis Terminal S.A. (‘Rubis Terminal’, France), currently controlled by Rubis. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rubis Terminal S.A. (‘Rubis Terminal’, France), currently controlled by Rubis.

ISQ acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Rubis Terminal, alongside Rubis.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for ISQ: investment company focusing on sectors such as energy, utilities, telecommunication and transport at a global level. |
| --- | --- |

—

for ISQ: investment company focusing on sectors such as energy, utilities, telecommunication and transport at a global level.

| — | for Rubis: company specialised in the distribution of petroleum products and storage of liquid products (including petroleum products, chemicals, agricultural products and fertilizers) at a global level. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Rubis: company specialised in the distribution of petroleum products and storage of liquid products (including petroleum products, chemicals, agricultural products and fertilizers) at a global level.

| — | for Rubis Terminal: business division of Rubis that mainly operates bulk storage terminals in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Turkey. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Rubis Terminal: business division of Rubis that mainly operates bulk storage terminals in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Turkey.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9740 — ISQ/Rubis/Rubis Terminal

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

| Postal address: |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
# C_2020429EN.01029601.xml

| 11.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/296 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/296

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering France to negotiate an agreement supplementing its existing bilateral Treaty with the United Kingdom concerning the construction and operation by private concessionaires of a Channel Fixed Link’

(COM(2020) 622 final – 2020/0160 (COD))

(2020/C 429/39)

| Referral | European Parliament, 14.9.2020
  Council, 27.7.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 2(1) and 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted at plenary | 16.9.2020 |
| Plenary session No | 554 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | unanimous |

Referral

European Parliament, 14.9.2020

Council, 27.7.2020

Legal basis

Articles 2(1) and 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted at plenary

16.9.2020

Plenary session No

554

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

unanimous

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 554th plenary session of 16, 17 and 18 September 2020 (meeting of 16 September) to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 16 September 2020.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Jacob JOHNSTON

No. 2018-KK-0604

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 31, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. A defendant's receipt of misinformation as to his sentencing exposure may impede, if not foreclose, his ability to make a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives. *See**North Carolina v. Alford* , 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) ; *State ex rel. LaFleur v. Donnelly* , 416 So.2d 82, 84 (La. 1982) (though it is critical that a defendant pleading guilty understand his *Boykin* rights, "it is probably much more important to the defendant's decision (about whether to plead guilty) that he understand the maximum penalty exposure."). This court previously remanded to the district court to determine in an evidentiary hearing whether defendant was advised that under the holding of *Graham v. Florida* , 560 U.S. 48, 65, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2024, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), as effectuated in La. R.S. 15:574.4(D) at the time defendant pleaded guilty in 2014, if defendant had pleaded guilty as charged to aggravated rape, he could have been eligible for parole after serving 30 years of a life sentence. *State v. Johnston* , 16-1460 (La. 6/5/17), 221 So.3d 46 (per curiam). After remand, it is clear that defendant was misinformed of his sentencing exposure, i.e. he was told that he faced a sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility. We find that misinformation impeded his ability to make a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives. Therefore, we grant the application to remand to the district court with instructions that defendant be given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.

**REMANDED**

GENOVESE, J., would deny.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Banco de Chile (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: April 26, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Arturo Tagle Q.
|                      |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Arturo Tagle Q.        
|                      |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  | 
|Dated: April 26, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Pedro Samhan E.
|                      |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Pedro Samhan E.        
|                      |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Banco de
Chile and will be retained by Banco de Chile and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Barbara MARCOS, Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2228

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 5, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6606

DOUGLAS ANDREW WILEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97-

639-MJG)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Andrew Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Wiley v. Smith, No. CA-97-639-MJG (D. Md. Apr. 10, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMANDA D. TUCKER MEUSE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2871 (UNA)

)

CLIFFORD WHITE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, purports to bring this qui tam action under the False Claims 

Act (“FCA”), see 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-32. “The False Claims Act prohibits false or fraudulent 

claims for payment from the United States.” U.S. ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp., 807 F.3d 281, 

286 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted); see United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., 

Inc., 342 F.3d 634, 640 (6th Cir. 2003) (describing FCA as “an anti-fraud statute that prohibits 

the knowing submission of false or fraudulent claims to the federal government”). It authorizes a 

private individual, as a relator, “to bring [a qui tam] action in the Government’s name, and to 

recover a portion of the proceeds of the action, subject to the requirements of the statute.” U.S. 

ex rel. Batiste v. SLM Corp., 659 F.3d 1204, 1206 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). 

In federal courts such as this, plaintiffs “may plead and conduct their own cases 

personally or by counsel[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The United States is “the real party in interest”

in a qui tam action, Cobb v. California, No. 15-cv-176, 2015 WL 512896, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 

2015), and pro se parties may not pursue a claim on behalf of the United States, see Idrogo v.

Castro, 672 F. App’x 27 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (concluding “district court correctly held 

that pro se plaintiffs . . . may not file a qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act”); Walsh

MAR. 16, 2022
2

v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 75 F. Supp. 3d 256, 263 (D.D.C. 2014) (“[I]t is well-settled that a

qui tam action may not be brought by a pro se plaintiff.”). To the extent plaintiff intends to bring 

another sort of claim, her complaint neither makes her intention clear nor articulates a viable 

legal claim. 

 The Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the 

complaint and this civil action without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: March 16, 2022 /s/

AMIT P. MEHTA

United States District Judge
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Selected hydrologic data for Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho, 1969-91      

      January 1, 1992    

View Document

View Plate

This report contains hydrologic data collected in Cache Valley from 1969 to 1991. The report area is in north-central Utah and southeast Idaho, within the Basin and Range physiographic province described by Fenneman (1931), and includes about 660 square miles.

Most of the data in this report were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Divisions of Water Resources and Water Rights. Some of the data collected before 1969 were previously published by McGreevy and Bjorklund (1970).

The purpose of this report is to provide hydrologic data for use by the general public and by officials managing the area's water resources, and to supplement interpretive reports for the area. Tables 1 to 7 contain selected well, spring, and surface-water data. The numbering systems used in this report for hydrologic-data sites are illustrated in figure 1. Hydrologic-data sites are shown on plate 1.

These data could not have been collected without the cooperation of local residents and officials of irrigation companies and municipalities, that permitted access to their wells, springs, and canals to measure water levels in wells and flow in springs and canals. The Idaho Department of Water Resources also provided valuable assistance and data. 

## Citation Information

### Contact

####               Salt Lake City Main Office          

2329 West Orton CircleWest Valley City, UT84119-2047United States

doleary@usgs.gov

(801) 908-5014

(801) 908-5001

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Cache Valley
                  - Idaho
                  -  Utah

View All **