alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Deer Creek, Clearfield County, PA*

Home** Our Work **Programs

# Programs

The Commission's work is accomplished by four program areas that collaborate to accomplish the goals of the Commission, which include the enhancement ofpublic welfare through comprehensive planning, water supply allocation, and management of the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin.

##### Compliance & Enforcement

The enforcement arm of the Commission's regulatory program, the Compliance & Enforcement Program, maintains and enforces Commission regulations and approved permit (docket) conditions. Site inspections, quarterly reporting requirements, and an extensive project database are some of the essential tools used by the program.

##### Monitoring & Protection

Monitoring and Protection scientists collect data to better understand the interactions of biological, chemical, and physical traits of streams throughout the Basin. These activities include water quality monitoring for macroinvertebrates, fish, stormwater, nutrient and sediment loadings, and abandoned mine drainage. Key protection efforts include operation of systems that provide real-time monitoring in sensitive watersheds and in the vicinity of drinking water supplies, establishing Total Maximum Daily Load criteria, assessing risks to drinking water sources, and characterizing the cause and extent of impairment to Basin waterways.

##### Planning & Operations

Planning and Operations provides technical support to the other programs and is tasked with assessing the nature and quantity of water use in the Basin. The Planning and Operationsteam also leads coordination efforts to help ensure that Basin agencies and residents are prepared to withstand and react toflooding anddrought conditions.

##### Project Review

The permitting arm of the Commission's regulatory program, the Project Review team, receives and reviews applications for water withdrawals and consumptive water use, diversions, makes recommendations to the Commissioners for actions on those applications, and helps to develop key standards guiding how, when, and where the Commission's policies and regulations are exercised.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2059. TORRENCE STEVEN JACKSON v. VIOLA SHANDTRALA

JACKSON.

In this divorce case, Torrence Steven Jackson filed a direct appealfromthe trial

court’s order dismissing his complaint for divorce. The trial court found that

jurisdiction was proper in Florida, the home state of the parties’ minor children.

Generally, appeals from orders entered in domestic relations must be appealed

by application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). However, a

direct appeal is proper under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) from all judgments or orders

“in child custody cases” that award, refuse to change, or modify child custody or

visitation, or orders that hold or decline to hold persons in contempt of child custody

orders. But OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) allows a “direct appeal from the types of orders

specified in that statute that are entered in ‘custody cases’ [and] not from orders

relating to child custody issues that are entered in ‘divorce cases.’” Voyles v. Voyles,

301 Ga. 44, 45-46 (799 SE2d 160) (2017); see also Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132,

134 (1) (757 SE2d 838) (2014) (holding that when child custody issues are ancillary

to a divorce action, the determination of child custody does not transform the case

into a “child custody case”); Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250, 251 (1) (703 SE2d 597)

(2010) (“All other issues in a divorce action, including child custody, are merely

ancillary to [the] primary issue [of whether the marriage should be dissolved].”); Ford

v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 (818 SE2d 690) (2018) (dismissing an appeal from

a divorce proceeding involving child custody issues because the appellant did not

pursue discretionary review).

This case is part of the divorce proceeding between the parties and, as such,

July 22, 2019
Torrence Jackson was required to file an application for discretionary appeal pursuant

to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is

jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). His failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us

of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/22/2019
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 27, 2024

NO. 03-24-00160-CV

D & S Gibson Group, LLC; Dante Gibson, and Sharon Gibson, Appellants

v.

Lone Ranger Capital Investments REIT, LLC; and Trustee Benjamin K. Williams, 

Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on March 5, 2024. Appellant’s have

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Office of the Chief Actuary | The 2010 OASDI Trustees Report   Historical document   |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                                  COMPUSA INC.
 
                        COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    JUNE 28, JUNE 29, JUNE 24,
                                                      1997     1996     1995
                                                    -------- -------- --------
<S>                                                 <C>      <C>      <C>
Common stock outstanding at beginning of year......  90,216   80,932   78,997
Weighted average number of shares of common stock
 issued during the year............................     619    6,578      800
Incremental shares related to assumed exercises of
 stock options.....................................   3,754    3,710    1,939
                                                    -------  -------  -------
Weighted common and common equivalent shares.......  94,589   91,220   81,736
                                                    =======  =======  =======
Net income......................................... $93,886  $59,665  $24,339
                                                    =======  =======  =======
Income per common and common equivalent share(1)... $  0.99  $  0.65  $  0.30
                                                    =======  =======  =======
</TABLE>
--------
 
(1) The computation of income per common and common equivalent share on a fully
    diluted basis does not materially differ from the amounts calculated on a
    primary basis.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40786 Summary Calendar

ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus K. BITTENBENDER, Lieutenant; PERCY H. PITZER, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1661

- - - - - - - - - - January 20, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alexandro Rodriguez Rodriguez, federal inmate #06430-000, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his civil rights complaint. We have carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate record. Rodriguez failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted his administrative remedies at the time he filed his complaint, and his complaint fails to allege the violation of a constitutional right. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissalNo. -2- of the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5699 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 44 acres of land in Martinez, California, 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, 
2 

•HR 5699 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘John Muir National 

3 Historic Site Expansion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. JOHN MUIR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE LAND ACQUI5 SITION. 

6 (a) ACQUISITION.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

7 acquire by donation the approximately 44 acres of land, 

8 and interests in such land, that are identified on the map 

9 entitled ‘‘John Muir National Historic Site Proposed 

10 Boundary Expansion’’, numbered 426/127150, and dated 

11 November, 2014. 

12 (b) BOUNDARY.—Upon the acquisition of the land 

13 authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior 

14 shall adjust the boundaries of the John Muir Historic Site 

15 in Martinez, California, to include the land identified on 

16 the map referred to in subsection (a). 

17 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The land and interests in 

18 land acquired under subsection (a) shall be administered 

19 as part of the John Muir National Historic Site estab20 lished by the Act of August 31, 1964 (Public Law 88– 

21 547; 78 Stat. 753; 16 U.S.C. 461 note). 

22 (d) DATE CERTAIN.—The authority provided in sub23 sections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply only if the lands iden24 tified on the map entitled ‘‘John Muir National Historic 
3 

•HR 5699 EH

1 Site Proposed Boundary Expansion’’ are held in title by 

2 the Muir Heritage Land Trust by May 31, 2015. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5699 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acCalifornia, and for other purposes. quire approximately 44 acres of land in Martinez,
Home **Our Work **  Grants ** Groundwater Level Monitoring Grant Program

# Groundwater Level Monitoring Grant Program

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission is pleased to offer a grant program designed to assist projects withcollecting and reporting water level data in groundwater wells within theSusquehanna River Basin.

The grant program is focused on projects that need to purchase, install, or maintain groundwater levelmonitoring equipment such that a project sponsor can accurately collect and report required operationaldata. Grant awards help develop a valuable resource of operational water level data for the project sponsorto use for the permit renewal process, as well as for sustainably managing their water system. The grant isopen to public and non-public project sponsors. Groundwater remediation projects are not eligible for thisgrant because the collection of water levels is not critical for renewal. Surface water projects are noteligible.

##### Project Eligibility

The following groundwater projects are eligible to apply for a grant:
      - A project with a current SRBC docket for the withdrawal of groundwater.
      - A project with a grandfathering certificate for the withdrawal of groundwater.
      - A project under an order to make application for the withdrawal of groundwater.
      - A project that includes a well that monitors any of the above three projects.

The grant is open to public and non-public project sponsors. Groundwater remediation projects are noteligible for this grant because the collection of water levels is not critical for renewal.

##### Grant Award Use

A project sponsor awarded a grant for groundwater level monitoring may use the award for the following:
      - For the purchase of equipment for a project that is not currently collecting water level data from its well(s); or
      - To upgrade monitoring equipment:         - to replace or upgrade equipment failure;
        - to achieve better accuracy;
        - to achieve better efficiency; or
        - to automate water level measurement/recording. 

##### How it Works 

When a grant is awarded, the project sponsor and the Commission enter into a grant agreement thatspecifies award conditions. Of particular importance is that the grant award functions as reimbursementof monitoring equipment purchased by the project sponsor. Funds will be distributed after the projectsponsor has submitted paid invoices or receipts to the Commission. Grant awardees must report the waterlevel data to the Commission.

##### How to Apply

When the application window is open, it can be found here: **The grant window is currently closed while we process applications. Please check back soon for announcement of the next round.**
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5562 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5562

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, as the ``Federal 
Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

 Mrs. Capps (for herself, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. 
    McClintock, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Bera of 
 California, Mr. Cook, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Denham, Mr. George Miller of 
California, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Speier, Mr. Swalwell 
of California, Mr. Costa, Mr. Honda, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Farr, 
  Mr. Valadao, Mr. Nunes, Mr. McKeon, Ms. Brownley of California, Ms. 
   Chu, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gary G. Miller of 
  California, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Ruiz, Ms. 
Bass, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Royce, Ms. Roybal-Allard, 
   Mr. Takano, Mr. Calvert, Ms. Waters, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Campbell, Ms. 
  Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
 Issa, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Peters of California, Mrs. Davis of 
  California, and Mrs. Negrete McLeod) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, as the ``Federal 
Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOTT J. WILLIAMS MEMORIAL POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Federal Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams 
Memorial Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Federal 
Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6120
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WANI REASHA LOGAN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-56-G, CA-94-601-2) Submitted: May 26, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wani Reasha Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 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 orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We previously remanded a portion of this case to the district court for consideration of Appellant's challenge to his conviction under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1998), in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Bailey v. United States ,516 U.S. 137 (1995). On remand, the district court vacated Appellant's § 924(c) conviction and dismissed the relevant count in the indictment. The district court's decision on remand disposes of one the claims Appellant presented on appeal.As to Appellant's remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Logan , Nos. CR-92-56-G, CA-94-601-2 (M.D.N.C. July 5 & Dec. 11, 1995). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 12.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

I, Shaolan Wang, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Tongjitang Chinese Medicines Company (the Company);

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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Companys other certifying officer(s) 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 Company 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 Company, 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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of
Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(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 Company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 Companys internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Shaolan Wang       
|Name:  |  | Shaolan Wang           
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66548-66549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31129]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT96-39-000]


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

December 18, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 11, 1995, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1 revised tariff sheets, as listed on Appendix A 
attached to the filing, proposed to be effective April 1, June 1, July 
1, September 1, October 1, and November 1, 1995.
    Trunkline states the revised tariff sheets reflect updates to the 
Index of Firm Customers. 

[[Page 66549]]

    Trunkline states that copies of this filing are being mailed to 
affected shippers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. Pursuant to Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations, 
all such motions or protests must be filed not later than 12 days after 
the date of the filing noted above. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31129 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M