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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5612 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5612

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2016

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2886 Sandy Plains Road in Marietta, Georgia, as the ``Marine Lance 
          Corporal Squire `Skip' Wells Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MARINE LANCE CORPORAL SQUIRE ``SKIP'' WELLS POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2886 Sandy Plains Road in Marietta, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Marine Lance Corporal Squire `Skip' Wells Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Marine 
Lance Corporal Squire `Skip' Wells Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTINA JOAN ASHTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 861 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Gabriel WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-5364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Mahmoud KAHEEL, Appellant, v. Awatif HAMMUD, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2380

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
T.H., Father and T.J., Mother, of T.G., T.G., T.J., T.H., T.H., T.H, And T.H, Children. Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1988

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
DELOITTE TAX LLP v. AMEDISYS, INC. (A DELAWARE CORPORATION), et al.

NO. 2018-CC-0993

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - (-)news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - oregon(1)
              - utah(1)

## By Year

Animated GIF        December 31, 2018        Data Science: Lake Mead Water Level Decline Visualization

Science Snippet        May 6, 2024        Trout, beavers, drought, and a “precious” frog

Animated GIF        July 5, 2022        Carbonate Budget Animation

Science Snippet        April 12, 2022        History of Lake Powell Written in Sediment

Science Snippet        December 29, 2022        Historic changes in water quality or lake surface elevation and their impact on endangered adult suckers in the Klamath Basin

Science Snippet        July 16, 2020        USGS Scientists are Busy as a Bee
NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data 

that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to 

facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of 

technical developments.

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

U.S. Department of Energy

Coordinating Research Council

EPAct/V2/E-89: Assessing the Effect 

of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust 

Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles 

Certified to Tier 2 Standards

Final Report on Program Design and 

Data Collection

Appendix G

Fuel Sampling Procedure

for Carryover Experiments

EPA-420-R-13-004

April 2013
G-2 

November 12, 2008 

Procedure for Sampling and Handling of Gasoline Samples

1. Make sure that the fuel in drum, sampling equipment and sample container are at 50oF 

max

• It is strongly advisable that the sample container be cooled in an ice chest

• Use a hand transfer pump 

• The glass sampling container must meet the following requirements:

i. At least 1 qt. capacity

ii. Amber colored. 

iii. Its cap must be equipped with a neoprene seal 

2. Position the sampling tube to take the fuel sample from the mid level of whatever fuel 

quantity is left in the drum

• It is recommended that a separate rigid tube of required length be used to sample 

fuel from a full drum and from a nearly empty (~ 15% full) drum 

3. Using the hand transfer pump, activate the flow of fuel from the drum into a slop 

container and slop at least 1 qt. of fuel 

4. Fill the sample container to 75-80% of capacity and seal tightly to prevent sample losses

• Make sure that during sampling the fuel flows gently (w/o splashing) into the 

sampling container. Use a filling tube that reaches to the bottom of the container 

5. Store the sample at 0 to 1o

C in a cooling bath or a refrigerator prior to opening the sample 

container for RVP measurement

6. Have the sample analyzed as quickly as possible
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: CoreCast

Filters

              - multimedia_image(31)
              - multimedia_image-141771(31)

## By Location

## By Year

              - (-)2022(31)
              - 2020(1)

Photography  Wind Turbines

Photography  Hoary Bat Victim

Photography  Wind Turbines

Photography  Wind Turbine

Photography  Wind Turbine Blade

Photography  Bison in Winter

Photography  Bison at Yellowstone National Park

Photography  Bison Cow and Calf

Photography  Pliocene Lignite Coal from BEN Village

Photography  Exposing Pliocene Lignite Bed Near a BEN Village

Photography  Bat with Radio Transmitter

Photography  Bats and Wind Energy

Photography  Bats and Wind Energy

Photography  Wind Energy Facility

Photography  BEN Patient

Photography  BEN Sampling in Serbia

Photography  Pliocene Lignite Bed

Photography  BEN Sampling in Serbia

Photography  Sampling a Sprint in BEN Village

Photography  Kidney Size Comparison of BEN Victims

Photography  Wind Turbine

Photography  Dave Mech with Brutus

Photography  Dave Mech Following Wolves

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

Photography  Brutus Dominance Behavior After Capture

Photography  Brutus Howling

Photography  Brutus' Teeth

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
Sammy Lee MORELAND, Appellant/ Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee / Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3230

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

## By Year

              - (-)2022(1)

Charts or Graphs  Yellowstone sinter research article graphic representing sample col...
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Peter de Visser, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Candente Resource Corp.;

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;

3.

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

4.

The Companys other certifying officer 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)) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  October 26, 2007

|                                         |  |                     
|---------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|By:                                      |  | /s/  Peter de Visser
|                                         |  |                     
|Peter de Visser,
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 6.1

Grupo TMM and Subsidiaries

Computation of Earnings per Share (IFRS)



|                                                                                 |  |              |             |   |      |  |             |      |  |  |             |   |  |      |             |   |  |  |            | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------ | ----------- | - | ---- |  | ----------- | ---- |  |  | ----------- | - |  | ---- | ----------- | - |  |  | ---------- | 
|                                                                                 |  | December 31, |            
|(In thousands pesos except ratio data)                                           |  | 2012         |             |   | 2011 |  |             | 2010 |  |  | 2009        |   |  | 2008 |            
|Shares at the end of period                                                      |  |              | 102,182,841 |   |      |  | 102,182,841 |      |  |  | 101,994,641 |   |  |      | 102,024,441 |   |  |  | 55,227,037 | 
|Yearly weighted average shares                                                   |  |              | 102,182,841 |   |      |  | 102,176,138 |      |  |  | 102,006,730 |   |  |      | 56,893,794  |   |  |  | 56,189,025 | 
|                                                                                 |  |              |             |   |     
|Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations                                     |  |              | (781,116    | ) |      |  | 191,583     |      |  |  | (1,005,314  | ) |  |      | (1,292,578  | ) |  |  | 840,447    | 
|Net Income (Loss) for the year Attributable to Stockholders of Grupo TMM, S.A.B. |  |              | (786,454    | ) |      |  | 179,044     |      |  |  | (1,026,128  | ) |  |      | (1.311,223  | ) |  |  | 834,799    | 
|Earnings (Loss) per share from continuing operations                             |  |              | (7.644      | ) |      |  | 1.875       |      |  |  | (9.855      | ) |  |      | (22.719     | ) |  |  | 14.957     | 
|Earnings (Loss) per share Attributable to Stockholders of Grupo TMM, S.A.B.      |  |              | (7.697      | ) |      |  | 1.752       |      |  |  | (10.059     | ) |  |      | (23.047     | ) |  |  | 14.857     |
exv10w56



 





EXHIBIT 10.56




FORM OF 2007

OUTSIDE DIRECTOR RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD




TOREADOR RESOURCES CORPORATION

2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN



Pursuant to the Toreador Resources Corporation 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for key
employees, key consultants, and outside directors of Toreador Resources Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and its Subsidiaries,




                                                            

(the “Participant”)



has been granted a Restricted Stock Award in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Plan.




     1. Terms of Award. The number of shares of Common Stock awarded under this Award
Agreement (this “Agreement”) is
                     shares (the “Awarded Shares”). The Date of Grant of
this Award is June 14, 2007.



     2. Subject to Plan. This Agreement is subject to the terms and conditions of the
Plan, and the terms of the Plan shall control to the extent not otherwise inconsistent with the
provisions of this Agreement. The capitalized terms used herein that are defined in the Plan shall
have the same meanings assigned to them in the Plan. This Agreement is subject to any rules
promulgated pursuant to the Plan by the Board or the Committee and communicated to the Participant
in writing.



     3. Vesting. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement and subject to certain
restrictions and conditions set forth in the Plan, all the Awarded Shares shall be vested on the
day before the next annual meeting, provided the Participant is providing services to the Company
or a Subsidiary on that date.



     4. Forfeiture of Awarded Shares. Awarded Shares that are not vested in accordance with
Section 3 shall be forfeited on the date of the Participant’s Termination of Service. Upon
forfeiture, all of the Participant’s rights with respect to the forfeited Awarded Shares shall
cease and terminate, without any further obligations on the part of the Company.



     5. Restrictions on Awarded Shares. Awarded Shares that are not vested in accordance
with Section 3 and which are subject to forfeiture in accordance with Section 4
shall be subject to the terms, conditions, provisions, and limitations of this Section 5.




     (a) Subject to the provisions of the Plan and the other terms of this
Agreement, from the Date of Grant until the date the Awarded Shares are vested in
accordance with Section 3 and no longer subject to forfeiture in accordance
with Section 4 (the “Restriction Period”), the Participant shall not be
permitted to sell, transfer, pledge or assign shares any of the Awarded Shares.




     (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) above, the Participant shall have, with
respect to his or her Awarded Shares, all of the rights of a stockholder of the
Company, including the right to vote the shares, and the right to receive any
dividends thereon.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 19, 2019 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RHASEAN LOWRY

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

No. 294418 Don W. Poole, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2019-00113-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., joining in part, concurring in result only in part.

I join the majority in all issues except the issue regarding the trial court’s denial of 

Defendant’s request for the trial court to charge facilitation as a lesser included offense of 

felony murder. As to that issue, I concur in results only.

At trial, the State made no objection to Defendant’s request for facilitation to be 

added as a lesser included offense on the basis that the request was not in writing. 

Likewise, on appeal, the State only argues the merits of the issue and does not assert the 

issue is waived by Defendant. 

The majority opinion, sua sponte, has treated the issue as waived. The majority is 

correct that a written request for the instruction is not in the record. However, the 

majority’s conclusion that no written request was made at all in the trial court is not the 

only logical speculation. In light of no objection by the State either in the trial court or 

on appeal, and nothing mentioned by the trial court that the request should be denied 

because it was not in writing, it is just as logical to speculate that a written request was 

made, but was not included in the appellate record. 

However, after summarizing applicable law regarding plain error review, the 

majority essentially analyzes the issue on its merits in order to conclude that Defendant is 

not entitled to plain error relief.

Instead of providing plenary review in order to deny plain error review when, as in 

this case, the issue of waiver is not raised by the appellee State, I believe that the issue 

should be addressed on its merits with the ultimate conclusion reached by the majority 

opinion – Defendant is not entitled to relief.

____________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

04/15/2020
STATE EX REL. Floyd TYLER and Ronald Braud v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1218

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

Denied; moot.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 15, 2013

NO. 03-13-00572-CR

Keith Terrell Menefield, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appeal be 

dismissed in accordance with the opinion of this Court; and it appearing that the appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs be made; and that this decision 

be certified below for observance.
AFS-12-151-E 

February 27, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10462 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0006 

Mr. Mike Gorman 

460 Pacific Oaks 

Goleta, CA 93117 

Dear Mr. Gorman: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 4, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an exemption from § 61.39 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the 

extent necessary to allow you to be eligible for a flight test even though more than 24-months 

have elapsed since you have passed the required FAA knowledge test. Although in your 

petition you requested an exemption from § 61.39, the FAA has found that you would need an 

exemption from § 61.39(a)(1). 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to you. 

The FAA issued denials of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption Nos. 4778 and 5103 (copies 

enclosed), the FAA found that the 24-month validity period for a written test is a reasonable 

one and provides some assurance that an applicant has appropriate and reasonable current 

aeronautical knowledge at the time of the flight test. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed Denials 

of Exemption Nos. 4778 and 5103; 
2 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption Nos. 4778 

and 5103 also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition for an exemption from 

14 CFR § 61.39(a)(1). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosures