alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Skip to Primary Navigation
      - Skip to Main Content
      - Skip to Footer

          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   

        -  Water & Power            - Dams
          - Powerplants
          - Projects
          - Agrimet/Hydromet
          - Water Operations 
        -  Resources & Research            - Programs
          - Technical Service Center
          - Research & Development
          - Reclamation Manual
          - Environmental Resources/Reports
          - Library 
        -  About Us            - Mission/Vision
          - Fact Sheet
          - Commissioner
          - Addresses/Contacts
          - Organizational Chart
          - Leadership Bios
          - Employment
          - Contact 
        -  Recreation & Public Use            - Find Recreation
          - Recreation.gov
          - Public Use 
        -  News & Multimedia            - News Releases
          - News Stories
          - Speeches
          - Congressional Testimony
          - Fact Sheets
          - Photos
          - Multimedia
          - Social Media 

# Visual Identity

              - Reclamation
              - Visual Identity

VISUAL IDENTITY                - Visual Identity Home

## Visual Identity Online Manual

The visual identity site has been permanately removed from the Internet. Following the rollout of Reclamation's new visual identity information, please find the updated guidelines and new image files on Reclamation's Intranet site. 

*Last Updated: 11/7/19*

## More Information about the Bureau of Reclamation

## Stay in Touch

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

            - Contact Us
            - Site Index
            - Accessibility
            - Disclaimer
            - DOI
            - FOIA
            - No Fear Act
            - Notices
            - Privacy Policy
            - Quality of Information
            - Recreation.gov
            - USA.gov
Y:\Cf Shared\Banking_All\Methods of Payment_Cost Recovery.docx Revised: November 2017

METHODS OF PAYMENT

TO PAY OIL SPILL-COST RECOVERY (NATIONAL POLLUTION FUNDS CENTER)

FORWARDED TO THE OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND (OSLTF)

WIRE TRANSFER / BANK TRANSFER

1. SEND TO: Federal Reserve Bank, New York City, NY [via any U.S. bank]

Only U.S. banks can wire directly to the Federal Reserve Bank. Foreign banks cannot 

wire directly to the Federal Reserve Bank but must go through an intermediary U.S. bank. 

Foreign banks may send the wire transfer to the U.S. bank of their choice, who, in turn, 

forwards the wire transfer to the Federal Reserve Bank. All payments must be made in US 

currency. 

2. BENEFICIARY (B N F): 70 06 0000 

The U.S. Treasury's Agency, Location Code for the U.S. Coast Guard.

3. A B A #: 021030004 Treas NYC 

The Receiver's Financial Institution (FI) -- American Banking Association (ABA) 

4. TYPE / SUBTYPE CODE: 10 00 (Type / Subtype Code is Mandatory.)

5. ORIGINATOR TO BENEFICIARY (O B I ): For description. 

Cite the Bill Number(s) in the description.

BY MAIL (BANK DRAFT OR CHECK)

PAYMENTS SENT BY USPS, SEND TO:

BANK DRAFT ON FOREIGN BANK BANK DRAFT ON U. S. BANK

U. S. Coast Guard Finance Center United States Coast Guard 

Attn: Accounts Receivable & Collections Oil Spill Cost Recovery

1430-A Kristina Way RE: FPN bill number

Chesapeake, VA 23326-0002 P. O. Box 979116

St. Louis, MO 63197-9000

For COST RECOVERY only:

NPFC US TREASURY ACCOUNT SYMBOL (TAS): 70X8349

USCG/NPFC TAX ID (TIN): 54-6010204

USCG/NPFC DUNS: 806754677
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0709

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

CISSY DEEN MANYHIDES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 17, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2024

03/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0709
#### James Malczewski et al., Appellants, v Cannon Design, Inc., et al., Respondents.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff injured his back moving computer equipment up a stairway at a facility owned by defendant Cannon Design, Inc. (Cannon). Cannon purchased the equipment from defendant California Computer Products, Inc. (Calcomp). Defendant Compass Tool Distributors, Inc. (Compass) provided an appliance dolly which plaintiff determined was too narrow for his purpose, thus requiring him to move the computer equipment by hand. Plaintiff sued Cannon and Calcomp under Labor Law § 241 (6) and sued Compass alleging negligence, strict product liability and breach of warranty. Special Term properly granted summary judgment to each defendant.

*942Labor Law §241 (6) does not apply because at the time plaintiff was injured he was not engaged in "construction” work as required by the statute and defined by regulation (12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]). The computer equipment does not constitute a building or structure. The presence of the computer equipment did not change the structural quality of Cannon’s facility in any significant way. The references in the regulation to "hoisting” and "equipment installation” make clear that such activity must occur during the construction, demolition or excavation of a building or structure. No such activity occurred here. Thus, plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to Labor Law §241 (6) was properly dismissed. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining claims and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                            RED BRICK SYSTEMS, INC.
                              STATEMENT REGARDING
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                  (unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED                NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                               SEPTEMBER 30,                     SEPTEMBER 30,
                                         -------------------------        --------------------------
                                             1997            1996             1997          1996
                                         ------------   ----------        ------------   -----------
<S>                                      <C>            <C>               <C>            <C>
Net income (loss)                        $(10,541,712)  $   817,347       $(18,436,844)  $ 1,443,723
                                         
Computations of weighted average         
  common and common equivalent           
  shares outstanding:                    
  Weighted average common                
    shares outstanding                     11,848,722    11,188,350         11,591,448    10,770,116
  Weighted average common equi-          
    valent shares attributable to        
    stock options and warrants                     --     1,581,662                 --     1,864,632
                                         ------------   ----------        ------------   -----------
                                         
    Shares used in computing             
      net income per share                 11,848,722    12,770,012         11,591,448    12,634,748
                                         ============   ===========       ============   ===========
                                         
Net income (loss) per share              $      (0.89)  $      0.06       $      (1.59)  $      0.11
                                         ============   ===========       ============   ===========
</TABLE>

Fully diluted computation not presented since such amounts differ by less than
3% of the net income per share amount shown above.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Pagan, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered March 30, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On May 26, 1983 at about 2:30 p.m., pursuant to a search warrant, the police forcibly entered an apartment and encountered the defendant standing in the kitchen without shirt, shoes or trousers.

A search of the middle and front bedrooms disclosed a quantity of controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia, cash and two handguns. A portion of the drugs and paraphernalia was in open view. The officers also found several pieces of mail addressed to the defendant, and two boxes containing papers bearing the defendant’s name. According to police testimony, prior to leaving the apartment, the defendant dressed himself with a shirt and shoes which he took out of a closet in the apartment. The police witnesses also described the apartment as a "railroad” type with rooms arranged in line, the kitchen in the rear, then the living room, the middle bedroom and the front bedroom. They also stated that there were no doors between the rooms and that they could see directly through to the front bedroom from the kitchen.

Although the defendant initially stated to the police that he lived in the apartment, at trial he testified that the tenants of the apartment had asked him to watch it for them, and that he was in the apartment for only a few hours when the police broke in to conduct the search. He claimed that he had told the police that he lived next door, he had never walked through the apartment into the bedroom areas and he had never seen any of the items seized before they were found.

We find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s constructive possession of the contraband and drug paraphernalia seized in the apartment. The jury was entitled to infer that the defendant had both knowledge and control of the contraband based upon his presence in the apartment, the fact that his mail, personal papers, and cloth*237ing were found therein and his initial admission that he lived there *(see, People v Robertson,*61 AD2d 600, *affd*48 NY2d 993; *People v Reisman,*29 NY2d 278, *cert denied*405 US 1041; *cf., People v Rodriguez,*104 AD2d 832).

We also find that contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the statutory presumption of possession under Penal Law § 220.25 (2), which was not objected to when charged, was available in this case and the trial court properly instructed the jury on this issue *(see, People v Daniels,*37 NY2d 624; *People v Caban,*90 Misc 2d 43, 46-47).

Finally, the defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender and we find no basis to disturb the sentencing court’s reasonable exercise of its discretion on this matter *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001002137
<NAME>                        SWISSRAY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     3,714,913
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              2,789,829
<ALLOWANCES>                               202,942
<INVENTORY>                                6,546,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           13,555,320
<PP&E>                                     7,785,311
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,301,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             24,946,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      16,194,622
<BONDS>                                    15,473,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   206,120
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,247,920)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               24,946,740
<SALES>                                    6,957,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6,957,028
<CGS>                                      5,332,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              5,332,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           10,304,079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,368,310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (14,027,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (14,027,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (14,027,434)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.87)


</TABLE>
# C_2021370EN.01000301.xml

| 15.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10380 — Hg/TA/Insightsoftware)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 370/03)

On 30 August 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10380. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10380. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1532
SUE ELLEN SELLARS HAMMONDS, a resident of New Hanover County, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus JOSEPH MCQUEEN, Sheriff of New Hanover County Sheriff's Department, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-226-7-F) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sue Ellen Sellars Hammonds, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison Sasser, III, Coleman M. Cowan, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Appellant alleged that Sheriff Joseph McQueen violated her civil rights while she was visiting the Sheriff's Department. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Hammonds v. McQueen, No. CA-96-226-7-F(E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 1997). Although McQueen was named as a defendant, Appellant did not allege that McQueen was personally involved in the claimed assault or that he had knowledge of conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury.Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated that McQueen was deliberately indifferent to or tacitly authorized the alleged offensive practices. See Shaw v. Stroud , 13 F.3d 791, 798-99 (4th Cir. 1994). Appellant has also failed to allege proof of a custom or policy favoring the commission of the alleged constitutional violations necessary to maintain an action against McQueen in his official capacity. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
**AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO**




**PLACEMENT
      AGENCY AGREEMENT**




THIS
      AMENDMENT, dated December 28, 2006 (this “Amendment”), between **Capital
      Growth Systems, Inc.** ,
      a
      Florida corporation d/b/a
      Connectivity Solutions International Inc. (the
      “Company”), and **National
      Securities Corporation** (the
“Placement Agent”).




**W
      I T N E S S E T H**




WHEREAS,
      the parties hereto have heretofore entered into a Placement Agency Agreement,
      dated November 14, 2006 (the “Agreement”); and




WHEREAS,
      the Company and the Placement Agent wish to amend the Agreement to, among other
      things, the reflect the increasing of the Minimum Amount and Maximum Amount
      of
      Escrow Funds needed to be raised in the Company’s Offering of its
      Units.




NOW,
      THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual promises herein
      contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
      sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby agree to amend the Agreement
      as follows:




1 1.  Definitions;
      References; Continuation of Agreement .
      Unless
      otherwise specified herein, each term used herein that is defined in the
      Agreement shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Agreement. Each
      reference to “hereof,” “hereto,” “hereunder,” “herein” and “hereby” and each
      other similar reference, and each reference to “this Agreement” and each other
      similar reference, contained in the Agreement shall from and after the date
      hereof refer to the Agreement as amended hereby. Except as amended hereby,
      all
      terms and provisions of the Agreement shall continue unmodified and remain
      in
      full force and effect.




2 .  Definition
      Clarified .
      The
      term “Minimum Amount” as defined in the Agreement shall be 150 Units
      ($15,000,000) and the Term “Maximum Amount” as defined in the Agreement shall be
      300 Units ($30,000,000).




3 .  Counterparts .
      This
      Amendment may be executed in counterparts, all of which shall be one, and the
      same, agreement.




4 .  Governing
      Law .
      This
      Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
      the
      State of New York.














(Signature
      page to follow)







IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
      executed on the date first above written.




NATIONAL SECURITIES
              CORPORATION
            
            CAPITAL GROWTH SYSTEMS,
              INC.By:
            
            
            By:Brian Friedman
            
            
            Thomas G. HudsonDirector of Corporate Finance
            
            
            Chief Executive
              Officer








1029928_2




2
Exhibit 10.2





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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Enodis plc (the Company) dated December 12, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Allner, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/    ANDREW J. ALLNERAndrew J. Allner Chief Executive Officer


December 12, 2002





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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Enodis plc (the Company) dated December 12, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, W. David Wrench, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/    W. DAVID WRENCHW. David Wrench Chief Financial Officer


December 12, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20376]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-41-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7--Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization 
of Production Activity; AbbVie Ltd. (Pharmaceutical Products), 
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

    On May 19, 2021, AbbVie Ltd., submitted a notification of proposed 
production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 
7I, in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 28540, May 27, 2021). On 
September 16, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: September 16, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20376 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P