alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Stored Product Insect and Engineering Research: Manhattan, KS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Units
                        Center for Grain and Animal Health Research: Manhattan, KS
                                    Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit
                                    Grain Quality and Structure Research Unit
                                    Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research UnitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Grain bins used for entomology and engineering research.
 X-ray of the stored product beetle, *Rhyzopertha dominica*, inside infested wheat kernels.


Our mission is to develop economical, effective, and ecologically sound methods for managing insect pests of grain and processed commodities, improve post-harvest management practices, and develop methods to rapidly evaluate grain quality.


**Scientists**    Armstrong, Paul (Acting RL)    Brabec, Dan    Campbell, James (CD)     Casada, Mark    Gerken, Alison
Morrison, RobOppert, BrendaPordesimo, LesterScheff, DeannaScully, Erin**Collaborators**    Arthur, Frank    Dowell, Floyd
**SPIERU Personnel**


Plains Area   Erin.Scully@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Range Management Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Comprehensive Publications
                    Research SummarySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Las Cruces, New Mexico Range Management Research Docs





- Landscape Toolbox
- Long Term Agricultural Research
- EcoTrends
- Long Term Ecological Research
- Ecological Site Descriptions
- Monitoring & Assessment
- Southwest Climate Hub
- Land Potential Knowledge System
- National Ecological Observatory Network
- JournalMap
- Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM)
- Data Catalogs

INFANTRY TRANSITIONheadline bar INFANTRY TRANSITION Infantry disturbance at Transition-type sites creates an increased risk of water erosion, but a low risk of wind erosion. Overall vegetation (primarily grass) recovery can take less than twelve months following treatment although shrub cover recovery can take up to three years. Full site recovery, including microbiotic crust recovery is likely to take six years or longer following treatment whereas soil infiltration rates are unlikely to be greatly affected by disturbance. Overall, the risk from livestock disturbance to soil and vegetation is low at transition type sites and treatments can be repeated safely every three to four years.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**ARTICLES OFAMENDMENT TO**

**ARTICLES OFINCORPORATION**

**eCom eCom.com,Inc.**

** **

**DOCUMENT NO.P94000045498**

 

Pursuant to theprovisions of Section 607.1006 of the Florida Statutes, this Florida Corporationadopts to the following amendments to its Articles of Incorporation.

 

**NEW CORPORATIONNAME**

 

1.         Thenew corporate name is **GREEN ENERGY GROUP, INC.**

 

2.         TheBoard of Directors unanimously approved this name change.

 

3.         Theamendments were adopted by the Board of Directors without shareholder action asshareholder action was not required and all other existing articles remain ineffect.

 

Signed on this 28thday of February, 2011

 

 

By:   /s/Barney A. Richmond

        eComeCom.com, Inc.

        Barney A.Richmond, President

 

 

 

 

 

          APPROVED

                AND

              FILED

 

   11 MAR -3  PM12:54

 SECRETARY OF STATE

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**SHERMAN COLEMAN,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**NANCY A. GIROUX,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 366 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 4th day of January, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of t his matter.**
---



Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Ronald A. Durando, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of mPhase Technologies, 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 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's 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.
> 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
> c.
> Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (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 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 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.

/s/ Ronald A. Durando



Ronald A. Durando

Chief Executive Officer



October 7, 2005

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000854062     
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP II-H
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                    78,275
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             95,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         173,535
<PP&E>                                 5,770,764
<DEPRECIATION>                         4,712,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,255,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     12,408
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             1,230,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,255,229
<SALES>                                  733,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,059,624
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            492,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          567,255
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      567,255
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             567,255
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               5.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:



(1) I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;



(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.



|       |                                                                   
|------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    | Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation                         
|       | General Partner                                                   
|       |                                                                   
|       | /S/ Kelly Tucek                                                   
|       |                                                                   
|Name:  | Kelly Tucek                                                       
|Title: | Vice President of the General Partner and                         
|       | principal financial officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.
|Date:  | March 23, 2006
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 196

To amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to require the Administrator

of General Services to prioritize construction and alteration projects

in accordance with merit-based needs criteria, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 1997

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to require the

Administrator of General Services to prioritize construction and alteration projects in accordance with meritbased needs criteria, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Buildings Con5 struction and Alteration Funding Improvement Act’’.
2

•S 196 IS

1 SEC. 2. PRIORITIZATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS CON2 STRUCTION AND ALTERATION FUNDING RE3 QUESTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Public Buildings Act of 1959

5 is amended by inserting after section 6 (40 U.S.C. 605)

6 the following:

7 ‘‘SEC. 6A. PRIORITIZATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS CON8 STRUCTION AND ALTERATION FUNDING RE9 QUESTS.

10 ‘‘(a) ANNUAL SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—As part

11 of the submission to Congress of the budget of the United

12 States Government for a fiscal year under section 1105

13 of title 31, United States Code, the President shall submit

14 a list, in order of need (as determined in accordance with

15 the regulations issued under subsection (b)), of projects

16 for the construction and alteration of public buildings for

17 which authorizations of appropriations are requested for

18 the fiscal year.

19 ‘‘(b) CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING NEED.—The Ad20 ministrator shall issue regulations specifying merit-based

21 criteria for determining the relative need for a project de22 scribed in subsection (a).’’.

23 (b) BUILDING PROJECT SURVEYS.—Section 11(b) of

24 the Act (40 U.S.C. 610(b)) is amended by adding at the

25 end the following: ‘‘In the case of a surveyed project for
3

•S 196 IS

1 the construction or alteration of a public building, the re2 port shall specify the relative need (as determined in ac3 cordance with the regulations issued under section 6A(b))

4 for the project with respect to all other such surveyed

5 projects that are not approved under section 7(a).’’.

Æ
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1935

To suspend temporarily the duty on Benzamide, 3,3′[(2-chloro-5-methyl-1,4-

phenylene)bis[imino = (1-acety-2-oxo-2,1-ethanediyl)azo}}bis{4-chloro-N-

(3-chloro-2-methyphenyl).

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 3, 1998

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Benzamide, 3,3′[(2-

chloro-5-methyl-1,4-phenylene)bis[imino = (1-acety-2-oxo2,1-ethanediyl)azo}}bis{4-chloro-N-(3-chloro-2-

methyphenyl).

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:
2

•S 1935 IS

‘‘ 9902.32.07 Benzamide, 3,3′[(2-chloro-5-

methyl-1,4-phenylene)bis[imino = (1-acety-2-

oxo-2,1-

ethanediyl)azo}}bis{4-chloroN-(3-chloro-2-methyphenyl)

(CAS No. 5580–57–4) (provided for in subheading

3204.17.04) ........................... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2001 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### John A. Bradley, Appellant, v Donald W. Rogers, Respondent.

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Klein, J.), entered October 8, 1985 in Ulster County/which (1) granted defendant’s motion for a default judgment on two counterclaims and for an assessment of damages, and (2) denied plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss said counterclaims or, alternatively, for leave to serve a proposed reply.

Plaintiff instituted suit to recover damages for defendant’s alleged destruction of leased premises and for reimbursement of monetary advances and utility expenses incurred during defendant’s occupancy.

Defendant’s verified answer sets forth a general denial and seven affirmative defenses. The sixth and seventh affirmative defenses, each of which also contains a counterclaim for damages, are each denominated as an affirmative defense and counterclaim. Plaintiff did not reply to the counterclaims because his counsel believed the hybrid labeling of the affir*783mative defenses and the counterclaims, one of which he considered nothing more than gibberish, made none necessary. It was counsel’s assumption that inasmuch as affirmative defenses are deemed denied (CPLR 3018), this was also true with respect to the counterclaims and, further, that allegations of an affirmative defense, to which a reply, unless one is ordered, is improper (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3011.02), could not be deemed denied and yet, at the same time, become admitted facts as to the counterclaims simply because of the purported ambiguity of defendant’s pleading.

When Special Term granted defendant’s motion for a default judgment on the counterclaims, ordered damages assessed, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for leave to serve a proposed reply, this appeal followed. As limited by his brief, plaintiffs appeal is directed only at securing leave to serve his proposed reply to the counterclaims.

The wiser course of action would have been to interpose a reply and argue the legal point at some later stage of the action (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3011.02). Nevertheless, since plaintiffs failure to reply was the product of a mistaken legal judgment and not willful, and any delay in replying was not lengthy and has not been shown to have caused defendant prejudice, leave to serve the reply should have been allowed *(see, Cefala v Basila,*95 AD2d 889, 890; *see also, McNeill v Lasala,*115 AD2d 459, 460).

Order modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as adjudged defendant entitled to recover on account of the two causes of action alleged in his answer, ordered an assessment of damages thereon and denied plaintiff leave to serve a proposed reply; plaintiff granted leave to serve a reply to the counterclaims in the answer; and, as so modified, affirmed. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANK EDWARD HUDSON I , an individual; and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND, DBA Home Forward, a public, municipal corporation; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 35400

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 02364

- BR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Frank Edward Hudson I appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourteenth Amendment procedural

due process violation s arising from the denial of veterans’ preferences in hiring.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except a s provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 16 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35400

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hudson’s action because Hudson failed

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim arising from the

denial of a pre

- deprivation hearing during the job application process

, or th e

inadequacy of available post

- deprivation remedies. See Hudson v. Palmer , 468

U.S. 517, 536, 539 (1984) (procedural due process claim requires that “claimant

must either avail himself of the remedies guaranteed by state law or prove that the

available remedies are inadequate”); Shinault v. Hawks , 782 F.3d 1053, 1057

- 58

(9th Ci r. 2015) (court applies three

- part balancing test set forth in Mathews v.

Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (197 6 )

, to determine whether a pre

- deprivation hearing is

required ) ; see also City of Los Angeles v. Heller , 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (a

Monell claim cannot su rvive in the absence of an underlying constitutional

violation)

.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT  99.1

                             MILLENNIUM DIRECT, INC.
                            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 Quarterly Report of Millennium Direct, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, George Balis, the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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
result of operations of the Company.

                                           /S/ GEORGE BALIS
                                           ----------------
                                           George Balis
                                           CEO, Secretary and Principal
                                           Accounting Officer
November 21, 2002