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

# Why do we have an ocean?

## The ocean formed billions of years ago.

Over vast periods of time, our primitive ocean formed. Water remained a gas until the Earth cooled below 212 degrees Fahrenheit.  At this time, about 3.8 billion years ago, the water condensed into rain which filled the basins that we now know as our world ocean. 

Most scientists agree that the atmosphere and the ocean accumulated  gradually over millions and millions of years with the continual 'degassing' of  the Earth's interior. 

According to this theory, the ocean formed from the escape  of water vapor and other gases from the molten rocks of the Earth to the  atmosphere surrounding the cooling planet.

After the Earth's surface had cooled to a temperature below  the boiling point of water, rain began to fall—and continued to fall for  centuries. As the water drained into the great hollows in the Earth's surface,  the primeval ocean came into existence. The forces of gravity prevented the  water from leaving the planet.

###### **Search** Our Facts

###### Get **Social**

**Last updated:**   01/20/23**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
STATE v. David Lee RISHER.

No. 595P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 22, 2006.

Matthew G. Pruden, for Risher.

Kelly L. Sandling, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*447The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of November 2006 by Defendant to Stay Mandate Pending Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of November 2006."
AKINS v. MISSION ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

No. COA05-1308.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Buncombe (05CVS1632).

Case without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Carroll Gene ALEXANDER.

No. 408P02-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 16, 2005.

C. Gary Triggs, for Carroll Gene Alexander.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Alan Martin, Assistant District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of September 2005 for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay of the Order of the Court of Appeals in this matter, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of September 2005."

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal of right G.S. 7A-30(b)(2), filed by Defendant on the 15th day of September 2005 in this matter, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of September 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Alexander County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of September 2005."
STATE of North Carolina v. Roy Charles THOMPSON.

No. 394P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 9, 2006.

Roy C. Thompson, Pro Se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 1st day of August 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Chatham County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of August 2006."
exv4w12



 




EXHIBIT 4.12




BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FINANCE CORPORATION




OFFER TO EXCHANGE




$800,000,000 principal amount of its Floating Rate Senior
Notes Due 2008




unconditionally guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which
have been registered




under the Securities Act of 1933, for any and all Floating
Rate Senior Notes




Due 2008, unconditionally guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway
Inc.




Instructions from Beneficial Owner



     
The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the
enclosed Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal in
connection with the offer by the Company to exchange the
Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.



     
This will instruct you to tender the principal amount of
Outstanding Notes indicated below held by you for the account of
the undersigned, upon the terms and subject to the conditions
set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of
Transmittal.



     
The undersigned represents that (i) the Exchange Notes
acquired pursuant to the Exchange Offer are being obtained in
the ordinary course of the undersigned’s business,
(ii) the undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to
engage, and has no arrangement or understanding with any person
to participate in the distribution of such Exchange Notes,
(iii) the undersigned is not an “affiliate,” as
defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the
Company and (iv) the undersigned is not acting on behalf of
any person or entity that could not truthfully make these
statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in
connection with any resale of the Exchange Notes.






		
	 	
    Sign Here
	 
	 	
     

	 	
    Signatures(s)











 





Securities which are to be tendered:




Tender all of the Outstanding Notes




Aggregate Principal Amount*




o     Outstanding
Notes 






 





Name(s) (Please Print)




 





Address




 





Zip Code




 





Area Code and Telephone No.




Dated:_______________, 2005






 







		
	* 	
    Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the
    Outstanding Notes listed are to be tendered.



2
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Alexander VERBAL.

No. 280A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Robert A. Verbal.

Danielle Marquis, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 23rd day of May 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1278/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1278/2013 of 9 December 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 1278/2013                     

# of 9 December 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, 9 December 2013.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*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.
exv10w4



 








EXHIBIT 10.4




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into this
8th day of August, 2005, by and between OrthoLogic Corp., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”) and James M. Pusey (“Executive”) and amends the Employment Agreement
dated as of March 3, 2005 between the Company and Executive (the “Employment Agreement”).



     The Employment Agreement is hereby modified and amended as follows:



     1. Sale of Boston condominium. The payment provided for in Section 4(h)(ii)(4) of the
Employment Agreement in connection with the sale of Executive’s Boston condominium is hereby fixed
at $50,000, the maximum amount payable under that provision, payable immediately to Executive.



     2. Reimbursement of additional expenses. In addition to the reimbursements provided
for in Section 4(h) of the Employment Agreement, the Company shall pay Executive an additional
$49,000 to reimburse Executive for other relocation and transition related expenses, payable upon
request to Executive.



     Except as expressly modified herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the
Employment Agreement and the terms and provisions of this Amendment, the terms and provisions of
this Amendment shall govern and control. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and
the same instrument.



     This Amendment No. 1 is executed as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 
	ORTHOLOGIC CORP.

	 	EXECUTIVE
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Jock M. Holliman, III

	 	/s/ James M. Pusey
	 

	 	 
	Jock M. Holliman, III

	 	Dr. James M. Pusey
	Chairman of the Board
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Evelyn M. Ochs, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 98]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 20, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a personal care assistant for a home placement agency. While she was caring for one of the agency’s clients, the client expressed her fear of being placed in a morgue upon her death and requested claimant to contact her son to obtain his cell phone number. In accordance with the client’s *1197request, claimant telephoned the client’s son at his home and obtained this information. This was contrary to the employer’s policy which required that all contact with the family members of a client be conducted through an authorized supervisor. After the client’s son complained about the call, claimant was terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that an employee’s failure to comply with an employer’s reasonable policies which is, in turn, detrimental to the employer’s interest may constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Adorno [Commissioner of Labor],*12 AD3d 828, 829 [2004]; *Matter of Kaissar [Commissioner of Labor],*3 AD3d 829, 830 [2004]). Here, claimant had direct contact with the client’s son without going through an authorized supervisor in violation of the employer’s policy. She was informed of this policy during orientation, as well as being advised that the failure to comply with it could result in her termination without warning. Inasmuch as the purpose of the employer’s policy was to further compliance with the legal requirements relating to the disclosure of confidential medical information and otherwise promote the employer’s best interest, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was terminated for misconduct.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7068
JOHN WAYNE BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. D. NETHERLAND, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-715-AM) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wayne Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 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 relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Netherland , No. CA-95-715-AM (E.D. Va. May 22, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for the appointment of counsel, objecting to the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, for compliance with prior court order, and requesting this court to order the institution where he is incarcerated to follow the procedures stated in this court's prior order. 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.

DISMISSED
WEBB EX REL. BUMGARNER v. NICHOLSON.

No. COA05-961.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Jackson (04CVS471).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOVEMBER 23, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10640

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-00318-CR-RWS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TROY ALEXIS

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(November 23, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Mary Erickson, appointed counsel for Troy Alexis in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18
L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Alexis’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
STATE v. Timothy BLACKWELL.

No. 490PA04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 3, 2007.

Patricia A. Duffy, Robert C. Montgomery, Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney Generals, *802Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Marilyz G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, for Black-well.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of January 2007 by Defendant to Stay Issuance of Mandate and to Withdraw the Court's Slip Opinion:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of January 2007."
STATE of North Carolina v. Arthur Mayo WOODBERRY.

No. 255P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Arthur Mayo Woodberry, Pro Se.

Rudy Renfer, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*58*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of May 2006 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 order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
McMILLAN v. GENERAL ELEC. CO.

COA06-171.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 7, 2006.

Certification Date November 27, 2006.

Appeal from the NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #235975, I.C. #314725).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
STATE v. CROSBY.

No. COA05-1299.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. David Franklin HURT.

No. 192A04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 3, 2006.

Lisa Bradley Dawson, Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney Generals, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of September 2006 by Defendant to Strike Supplemental Brief for the State:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of October 2006."
BEKSHA-BROWN v. MASON.

COA06-350.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 17, 2006.

Certification Date November 6, 2006.

Appeal from Randolph (05CVS1836)

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Almarez, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 549]

Motion for reargument granted and, upon reargument, the memorandum and order entered June 10, 2005 amended by deleting the second independent clause of the last sentence of the memorandum. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Smith, Pine and Lawton, JJ. *[See*19 AD3d 1005.]
STATE v. DAVIS

No. COA04-1566.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from Wake (03CRS44052, 03CRS44053, 03CRS44054, 03CRS44055, 03CRS44056, 03CRS44057, 03CRS44058, 03CRS44059, 03CRS44060, 03CRS44857, 03CRS44858, 03CRS44859, 03CRS44860, 03CRS46292, 03CRS43749).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1353/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1353/2013 of 9 December 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Liers vlaaike (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1353/2013                     

# of 9 December 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Liers vlaaike                        (PGI)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Belgium's application to register the name ‘Liers vlaaike’ was                              published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Liers vlaaike’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 9 December 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products and foodstuffs listed in Annex I(I) to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012:

### **Class 2.4.****Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares**U.K.

#### BELGIUMU.K.

Liers vlaaike (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 177, 22.6.2013, p. 8.
IN RE C.B.

No. COA06-591.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Buncombe (05J79, 05J80).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.