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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - (-)products_data(1)
              - products_publications(9)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(34)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(10)
              - colorado(4)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(7)
              - montana(5)
              - (-)nebraska(1)
              - nevada(6)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - texas(3)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(6)
              - wyoming(4)

## By Year

Data Release        May 9, 2022        Geochemical data for the Elk Creek alkaline complex, southeast Nebraska
Adam S. BURKE, Appellant, v. Molly E. BURKE, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1596

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORTPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Ron Bentsur, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.;
 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the consolidated 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.
The registrant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 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 report is being prepared;
 
 b)
[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986]
 
 c)
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; and
 
 d)
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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 14, 2004

/s/  Ron BentsurRon Bentsur Vice President, Finance and Investor Relations  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Omar Graciani RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3056

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 18, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 103921-103926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30248]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: This action was issued on December 16, 2024. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for relevant dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 
202-622-2490; or https://ofac.treasury.gov/contact-ofac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

Notice of OFAC Action

    On December 16, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed 
below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 103922]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE24.016


[[Page 103923]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE24.017


[[Page 103924]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE24.018


[[Page 103925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE24.019


[[Page 103926]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19DE24.020


Lisa M. Palluconi,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2024-30248 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C`
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6704
MICHAEL W. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-244-AM) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his Motion for Preliminary Injunction. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Owens v. Angelone , No. CA-96-244-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES v. BOGISH.

No. 10973.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 19,1953.

Decided June 4, 1953.

Louis A. Aleli, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Morton M. Fine, Philadelphia, Pa. (Joseph G. Hildenberger, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

*508PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the defendant from his conviction upon three counts of an indictment charging him with receiving and concealing 5% grains of heroin -which had been unlawfully imported, and with selling the heroin not in pursuance of a written order on a lawfully issued blank form and not from the original stamped package, all in violation of the federal narcotic laws. The appellant asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction and that in any event trial errors call for a new trial. Our examination of the record does not support these contentions.

 It is true that there was no direct evidence of the appellant’s delivery of the heroin in question to the government informer. The jury was justified, however, in finding that the heroin which was turned over by the informer to the government agent had been delivered to him by the appellant in view of the evidence of contact between them immediately prior thereto coupled with the evidence that the appellant had previously undertaken to supply the informer with the heroin and that the latter had paid him the price which he had asked for the drug. In the light of this evidence the failure of the government to prove that the informer had no heroin in his possession before his contact with the appellant, while a factor for the jury’s consideration in appraising the evidence, was not fatal to the government’s case.

The hearsay testimony which the agent Pocoroba volunteered was incriminating and should not have been given. It was, however, stricken out by the trial judge upon the appellant’s objection. No motion for a mistrial was made upon the basis of this testimony nor was the trial judge requested to give further instructions with respect to it. Under these circumstances it cannot be made the basis on appeal for convicting the trial judge of error. The charge of the trial judge to the jury was clear, complete and eminently fair. The appellant’s objections to it are wholly without merit.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 974 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-718, K2025-717.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30035 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Benjamin F. SKEEN, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jonathan R. COMNES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1908

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 06, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied as moot.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Kenexa Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Nooruddin S. Karsan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald F. Volk, Chief Financial 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 to their respective knowledge:

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

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

By:

/s/  NOORUDDIN S. KARSANNooruddin S. Karsan Chief Executive Officer November 9, 2007




By:

/s/  DONALD F. VOLKDonald F. Volk Chief Financial Officer November 9, 2007


This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge
standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kenexa Corporation and will be retained by Kenexa Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE EX REL. Terrance MOUTON A/K/A Terrence Mouton v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1927

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

*602Denied. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
#### GARRISON v. DAXON.

Third Division. Valdez.

February 27, 1924.

No. A-369.

Landlord and Tenant &wkey;»f69(3) — Negligence <&wkey;H9(I) — Contributory Negligence.

Plaintiff sued defendant, her landlord, for damages occasioned by the landlord’s negligence in leaving a trapdoor open, into which plaintiff stepped in the dark, and was injured. Demurrer was interposed, because plaintiff did not allege that at the time of the accident she was in the exercise of ordinary care. *Held*that, while contributory negligence is a defense, which generally must be pleaded and proved by defendant, yet in such a case it is necessary- for a plaintiff to allege that he (or she) was using ordinary care, and that the cause of his injury was not easily perceptible to him. Demurrer sustained, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff in this action sues for damages for personal injuries alleged to be due to the negligence of defendant, whose tenant she was in a certain building. Defendant demurs to- the sufficiency of the complaint.

J. C. Murphy, of Anchorage, for plaintiff.

J. D. Waller, of Anchorage, for defendant.

RITCHIE, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s cause of action on the whole is well pleaded, and I did not readily decide that it is insufficient. It appears to me to be lacking in only one particular. She alleges, in substance, that a rear door of an annex to the apartment she rented from defendant and was occupying was over or adjacent to a cellarway leading to the basement of the apartment house, which cellarway was used by defendant and his agents in getting to the basement to attend to the heating plant situated therein; that one evening the trapdoor leading to the basement was left open. Although the complaint does not say so, the trapdoor apparently was over the cellarway. Plaintiff stepped out in the darkness and fell through the open doorway, thereby receiving the injuries complained of.

Plaintiff pleads that the trapdoor and cellarway were under the control of and operated by defendant, and that it was his *171duty to keep the same in safe condition. This allegation, together with the averment that plaintiff habitually used the door in the rear of her apartment as a means of egress therefrom, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, would be sufficient to state a cause of action, but for one thing. She totally fails to allege that at the time of the accident she was in the exercise of ordinary care. It is true that contributory negligence is a defense, which generally must be pleaded and proven by defendant. Nevertheless it is usual, and I think necessary, for a plaintiff in a personal injury case to allege that he was using ordinary care in whatever he was doing, and that the cause of his injury was not easily perceptible to him.

Because of the failure to set up the last-mentioned allegation in the complaint, the demurrer thereto is sustained, and plaintiff allowed 30 days from date to file an amended complaint.

ee

 same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Exhibit 23.12(b)





EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.





March 28, 2013





TO:           Seabridge Gold Inc.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Seabridge Gold Inc. (the “Company”), to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012, which is being filed as an exhibit to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.





I, Nigel Goldup, P.Eng., on behalf of myself and EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following reports and to the references, as applicable, to my name and EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.’s name in connection with the following report in the AIF and the 40-F:


·
Seabridge Gold Inc. - Courageous Lake Prefeasibility Study dated September 5, 2012; and


·
Courageous Lake Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment 2011 dated July 15, 2011.





Yours truly,/s/ Nigel GoldupNigel Goldup, P.Eng.
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------



                                      15
<PAGE>


COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2003-9T1
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-22


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

     (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
     preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
     under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

     (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
     Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout
     such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                   Dated: March 25, 2004
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER



/s/ Mark Wong                              Dated: March 25,  2004
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT


                                      16
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2003, I, Hal Giomi, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)                                  suchAnnual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company forthe year ended December 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of The BankHoldings.

 
| Dated: March 26, 2004 |
|----------------------------|
|                       |
| /s/ Hal Giomi              |   |
|                       |
| Chief Executive Officer    |

 

----
David D. WEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1670

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 17, 2018

David D. West, Blountstown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TORPY, BERGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Charles L. SEMKO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2392

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.