alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Home
- Ecosystens
- Estuaries
- Celebrate Estuaries

# **Celebrate Estuaries**

 Discover some of the **benefits** of estuaries and our National Estuarine Research Reserve System:

### National Estuarine Research Reserves

 The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is a network of 30 estuarine areas established across the nation for long-term research, education, and coastal stewardship. The reserves are a partnership between NOAA and the coastal states and territories.  

### Living Laboratories

 The reserves are living laboratories, which makes them ideal sites for research and long-term monitoring. By understanding how estuaries function and change over time, scientists are in a better position to predict how coastal ecosystems will respond to climate change. 

### Estuary Life

 Estuaries are made up of many different types of habitats. These habitats can include oyster reefs, coral reefs, rocky shores, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, and mangroves. Different animals live in each of these habitats. Fish, shellfish, and migratory birds are just a few of the animals that can live in an estuary. 

### Protect our Estuaries

You have a role in helping to protect these fragile estuarine ecosystems. View this list of simple things you can do every day to help protect and conserve our nation's estuaries.

##### **What is an estuary?**

*Estuaries and their surrounding wetlands are bodies of water usually found where rivers meet the sea. Estuaries are home to unique plant and animal communities that have adapted to brackish water—a mixture of fresh water draining from the land and salty seawater.*

##### More **Information**

 National Estuarine Research Reserves 

 Office for Coastal Management 

 Explore Reserves 

 Estuaries Education 

 Tutorial: Estuaries 

 Reserve Images 

##### **Last updated:**

###### 						 1/04/21					

**Author:** NOAA

How to cite this article

Contact Us

##### 					Feedback

                  -  Provide Feedback 
                  -  Contact Us
                  -  Report an error

##### 					Social

                  - 
                  - 
                  - 
*Science. Service.Stewardship.*
							About NOS						- About Us
- NOS Program Offices
- Media Inquiries
- Website Acknowledgements
- Site Index
- Disclaimer
							More Resources						- Freedom of Information Act
- Accessibility
- Information Quality
- Privacy Policy
- NOS For Employees
- USA.gov
-  Department of Commerce
-  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-  National Ocean Service
CITY OF CHARLOTTE v. HURLAHE, et al.

No. 387P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Rebecca Cheney, John P. Barringer, Charlotte, for City of Charlotte.

Averill C. Harkey, Charlotte, for William H. Hogue.

Robert H. Hull, Jr., Charlotte, M. Jay Devaney, Eric Biesecker, Greensboro, for Trustee-Deed of Trust.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of August 2006 by Defendants (John and Linda Hurlahe) to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
PATRONELLI v. PATRONELLI.

No. 55A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2006.

Michael S. Harrell, Raleigh, for Carrie Patronelli.

John M. Oliver, for Donald J. Patronelli.

John I. Mabe, Jr., Raleigh, for NC Bar Association.

William D. Rowe, for N.C. Justice Center.

Kenneth L. Schorr, Charlotte, for LSSP.

Andrea Kurtz, for LAS.

Christine O. Trottier, for CLA.

Stella A. Boswell, for NCAWA.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of August 2006 by Amici for Leave to Present Oral Argument:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Johnny Shane CURRY.

No. 429P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Johnny Shane Curry.

Jeffrey R. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of August 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following *770order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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; andc)
    
    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
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  By:
    /s/ James C. MastandreaJames C. MastandreaChairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer and President

(Principal Executive Officer)
RODGERS v. INGHAM.

COA05-1568.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 17, 2006.

Certification Date November 6, 2006.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CVS15629)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302



EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Richard L. Peteka, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Apollo Investment Corporation,
certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Apollo Investment Corporation;



2. Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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 is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared; and



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 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 the financial reporting;



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 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.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|Dated this 3rdday of November, 2005
|                                   
|/S/    RICHARD L.
PETEKA           
|                                   
|Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. HOOVER.

No. COA05-1670.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (03CRS51453, 03CRS51454, 04CRS17009).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 32.3
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Thomas B. Specketer, Vice President and Controller of MidAmerican Energy Company (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 
 
 
 
 Dated: August 3, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Thomas B. Specketer
 Thomas B. Specketer
 Vice President and Controller
 (chief financial officer)
HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Atlantic Indemnity Company.

No. 444PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 5, 2005.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 165 N.C.App. 543, 600 S.E.2d 901 (2004), affirming an order granting summary judgment entered 27 June 2003 by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 April 2005.

McDaniel & Anderson, L.L.P., by John M. Kirby and William E. Anderson, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee.

George L. Simpson, III, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
#### Harold Bonime, Appellant, v Bridge 21, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[799 NYS2d 417]

In a purported class action to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated May 28, 2004, as granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For the reasons set forth in *Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour & Travel*(22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), a class action may not be maintained pursuant to CPLR 901 (b). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
RIPELLINO v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 180A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 11, 2006.

Stephanie H. Autry, Rachel B. Esposito, Meredith T. Black, Raleigh, James R. Lawrence, Jr., for Johnston County Bd. of Ed.

Bradley N. Schulz, Smithfield, for Michael Ripellino, et al.

Barbara B. Weyher, T. Carlton Younger, III, for School Boards, et al.

K. Dean Shatley, Asheville, for NC Council School of Attys.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of August 2006 by NC Council of School Attorneys for Extension of Time to Move for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. By order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of August 2006."
GUYE v. KAT'S CLEANING.

No. COA06-144.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 19, 2006

Certification Date October 9, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #221884)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
DECEMBER 31, 1996 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE-MONTH 
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE FOOTNOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,156,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,196,738
<PP&E>                                       2,731,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,202,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,970,428
<BONDS>                                        534,239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,829,703
<OTHER-SE>                                (12,255,878)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,202,726
<SALES>                                      3,993,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,993,517
<CGS>                                        4,571,208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,571,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,316,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             6,727,893
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             950,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,555,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,633,426)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.72)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. SWINDELL.

No. COA06-432.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Carteret (05CRS50355).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 315/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 315/2013 of 5 April 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 315/2013                     

# of 5 April 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 April 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




RETIREMENT TERM SHEET




	 	 	 	 	 
	1.

	 	Retirement Pay/Salary Continuation
	 	Terminate salary at close of business on 7/31/05
	 
	 	 	 	 
	2.

	 	Bonus
	 	To be determined by the Compensation

Committee in its sole discretion, pro

rated through 7/31/05
	 
	 	 	 	 
	3.

	 	Health Care Benefits
	 	Participation in Executive Retiree
Program, which generally provides
medical benefits, at Executive’s
cost, through Executive’s
65th birthday.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	4.

	 	401(k) Plan
	 	No matching or other contributions

after 7/31/05
	 
	 	 	 	 
	5.

	 	Options under 1995 Plan
	 	Vesting of options to be accelerated
as of 7/31/05. Options shall remain
exercisable for 90 days following
7/31/05
	 
	 	 	 	 
	6.

	 	Options under 2003 Plan
	 	Because of Executive’s
continuation as a director, options will be unaffected by

retirement, in accordance with the

plan
	 
	 	 	 	 
	7.

	 	Restricted Stock Units
	 	Because of Executive’s
continuation as a director, RSUs will be unaffected by

retirement, in accordance with the

plan
	 
	 	 	 	 
	8.

	 	Car Allowance
	 	Terminate car allowance at close of
business on 7/31/05
	 
	 	 	 	 
	9.

	 	General Release
	 	To be provided no later than August

5, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7538

CHRISTOPHER BULLARD; TONY GINOR SAMPSON,

 Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

REUBEN FRANKLIN YOUNG,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03093-FL)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Bullard, Tony Ginor Sampson, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying 

relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Bullard v. Young, No. 5:12-ct-03093-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2012). 

We deny Appellants’ motion to compel an answer and for grant of 

motions filed in the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00163-CV

IN RE KAVEH BARAKHSHAN AND 

HAMID BARAKHSHAN

RELATORS

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and 

temporary relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, 

relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and temporary relief is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 26, 2012

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Steven Wayne Fisher v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00339

- CR

Trial court case number: 1428579

Trial court: 263rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant has filed a motion to abate this appeal for the trial court to issue a corrected Certification of the Defendant’s Right to Appeal indicating that the underlying case is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right to appeal. Appellant notes that the clerk’s record

contains a January 7, 2015 Certification stating that th e case was a plea bargain case and the

defendant does not have th e right to appeal

. But the notice of appeal on file with this Court attaches

a corrected Certification issued on the same day striking its prior statement and stating t hat the

case “ is not a plea bargain case

, and the defendant has the right to appeal. ” Ac cordingly, because a corrected Certification has been issued with the statement requested by appellant, the motion to

abate is dismissed as moot

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland Acting individually

Date: February 14, 2017
STATE v. Travis Demonz BOONE.

No. 516P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of September 2006 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."