alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home**  Portals  **Susquehanna Atlas**Data & Maps** Susquehanna River Basin

# Susquehanna River Basin

The Susquehanna River is the nation's sixteenth largest river and is the largest river lying entirely in the United States that flows into the Atlantic Ocean. The Susquehanna and its hundreds of tributaries drain 27,510 square miles, an area nearly the size of South Carolina, spread over parts of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

The river meanders 444 miles from its origin at Otsego Lake near Cooperstown, New York, until it empties into the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Maryland. The Susquehanna contributes one-half of the freshwater flow to the Bay.
**Population**            - Total - 4,202,460
            - In NY - 616,640
            - In PA - 3,525,670
            - In MD - 60,150

**Major population centers:** Binghamton, Elmira, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport, Altoona, Harrisburg, Lancaster, York

Please visit the Subbasins page for detailed information and maps on each subbasin.

### Metadata

| GIS Dataset Title                                                     | Susquehanna River Basin Boundary |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Polygon dataset that represents the Susquehanna River drainage basin. |
| 2006                                                                  |
| 1:24,000                                                              |
| SRBC                                                                  |
| PASDA - Susquehanna River Basin Boundary                              |
| Susquehanna River Basin Boundary, 2006                                |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE ALVARADO

,

Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA MONTALBO

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00130

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2016CV04373)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss

the appeal. We further order Appellant to pay all costs of the appeal and that this decision be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY O F OCTOBER, 2023.

Y VONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Bank of America, N.A., as Trustee 

for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement No. 33-55784 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-91460 on Form S-8 of XTO Energy Inc. of our reports dated February 25, 2008, with respectto the statements of assets, liabilities, and trust corpus of the Cross Timbers Royalty Trust as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Cross TimbersRoyalty Trust. 

KPMG LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

February 26, 2008
#### Anthony Reichardt, Appellant, v. The Department of Public Works, etc., Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, on opinion of

Beach, J.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 8770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3964]



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


DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b), notice is hereby given of the following 
Board meeting and staff briefing:

``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Previously 
announced in the February 14, 1995, Federal Register.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 2:00 p.m., February 
21, 1995.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Board is broadening the scope of matters to 
be considered by adding the following information: The Board will also 
convene a panel of nationally-recognized experts to discuss the DOE 
Plutonium Vulnerability Study and to address questions that may arise 
from the results of this study.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Robert M. Andersen, General 
Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, 
S.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004, (202) 208-6387.

    Dated: February 13, 1995
Kenneth M. Pusateri,
General Manager.
[FR Doc. 95-3964 Filed 2-13-95; 2:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-M
#### R. H. THEILING v. GEORGE B. WILSON et al.

(Filed 4 January, 1933.)

1. Master and Servant B d — Employee due salary cannot recover of third person upon allegation that third person owed employer.

A complaint in an action against the plaintiff’s. employer and a third person alleging that the employer was insolvent and was indebted to the plaintiff and that the third person was indebted to the employer for the work for which the plaintiff was due the salary, fails to state a cause of action against such third person.

2. Appeal and Error G a—

Where the appellant fails to file printed or mimeographed copies of brief as required by Rule 27, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal by plaintiff from *MacBae, Special Judge,*at June Term, 1932, of MeceleNbues.

Civil action to recover for services rendered as an accountant.

The complaint alleges:

1. That the defendant, George B. Wilson, trading as George B. Wilson and Company, was employed by the board of commissioners of Mecklenburg County to audit the books of the clerk of the Superior Court of said county.

2. That the plaintiff, an employee of the said George B. Wilson and Company, is now due the sum of $781.21 for salary and commissions earned in connection with the auditing of the books of the said clerk’s office.

3. That the plaintiff’s employer, George B. Wilson and Company, is insolvent and that notice has been given to the defendant, board of county commissioners, of plaintiff’s claim; wherefore, demand is made that plaintiff have judgment against both defendant, his employer and the board of county commissioners.

*810Demurrer interposed by the board of county commissioners on the ground that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against said board; demurrer sustained; plaintiff appeals.

*William Milton Ilood for plaintiff.*

*H. C. Doclcery and Jos. H. McCownell for defendant, commissioners.*

Stacy, C. J.

No cause of action is stated against the board of commissioners of Mecklenburg County. The plaintiff simply alleges that his employer is indebted to him and that the board of county commissioners is indebted to his employer. The demurrer was properly sustained. *Aman v. Walker,*165 N. C., 224, 81 S. E., 162.

But for a different reason, the appeal must be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to file printed or mimeographed copies of brief as required by Rule 27. To dispense with the rule in this case would require its abrogation. Pr*uit v. Wood,*199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126; *Byrd v. Southerland,*186 N. C., 384, 119 S. E., 2.

Appeal dismissed.
### Proposed Provision: H5. Beginning in 2030, for single/head-of-household/married-filing-separate taxpayers with MAGI of $250,000 or more and joint filers with MAGI of $500,000 or more, include up to the remaining 15 percent of Social Security benefits in taxable income (increased from up to 85 percent of benefits taxable under current law). In subsequent years, update these thresholds for growth in wages (AWI). Revenue from this provision would be credited to the Social Security trust funds. Current law taxation of up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits would remain unchanged.

back
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of PTEK Holdings, Inc. (“PTEK”) Nos. 333-11281,333-17593, 333-29787, 333-39693, 333-52357, 333-79599, 333-87635, 333-89891, 333-51380, 333-57698, 333-67292, 333-101262 on Form S-8 and No. 333-36557 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 15, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statementsof PTEK as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PTEK for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 15, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3744 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3744

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to reauthorize 
 and modify the boundary of the Baltimore National Heritage Area, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2022

 Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to reauthorize 
 and modify the boundary of the Baltimore National Heritage Area, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Baltimore National Heritage Area 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF BALTIMORE NATIONAL 
              HERITAGE AREA.

    (a) Boundary Modification.--
            (1) Map.--Section 8005(a)(4) of the Omnibus Public Land 
        Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 111-
        11; 123 Stat. 1247) is amended by striking ``entitled'' and all 
        that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
        ``entitled `Baltimore National Heritage Area Proposed 
        Boundary', numbered T10/179,623, and dated February 2022.''.
            (2) Boundaries.--Section 8005(b)(2)(A) of the Omnibus 
        Public Land Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; 
        Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1247) is amended by striking 
        ``October 2001'' and all that follows through the period at the 
        end and inserting ``July 2020.''.
    (b) Reauthorization.--Section 8005(i) of the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 111-11; 123 
Stat. 1253; 130 Stat. 1491) is amended by striking ``the date that is 
15 years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
``March 30, 2036''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21.01

The principal subsidiary undertakings at April 30 2003, all of which are wholly-owned, are:

|                             |  | Notes |  | Country of incorporation
and operation
|---------------------------- |  | ----- |  | --------------------------------------
|Merant Holdings Limited      |  | 1     |  | U.K.                                  
|Merant International Limited |  | 1     |  | U.K.                                  
|Merant, Inc                  |  | 2     |  | U.S.A.                                
|Merant Pty Limited           |  | 2     |  | Australia                             
|Merant SA                    |  | 2     |  | France                                
|Merant Gmbh                  |  | 2     |  | Germany                               
|Merant Investments Limited   |  | 3     |  | Jersey                                
|Merant BV                    |  | 2     |  | Netherlands                           
|Merant Pte Ltd               |  | 2     |  | Singapore                             

---

---

QuickLinks
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3567 

To modify the limitation on military-to-military exchanges and contacts with 

the People’s Liberation Army to cover all logistical operations and remove 

the exception for search-and-rescue and humanitarian operations and 

exercises. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. 

HAGERTY, and Mr. HAWLEY) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To modify the limitation on military-to-military exchanges 

and contacts with the People’s Liberation Army to cover 

all logistical operations and remove the exception for 

search-and-rescue and humanitarian operations and exercises. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No People’s Liberation 

5 Army in Logistical Operations and Other Pertinent Hu6 manitarian Operations Leading to Endangered Security 

7 Act’’ or the ‘‘No PLA LOOPHOLES Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3567 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON MILITARY-TO2 MILITARY EXCHANGES AND CONTACTS WITH 

3 CHINESE PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY. 

4 Section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization 

5 Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65; 10 U.S.C. 

6 168 note) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ‘‘Advanced 

8 logistical operations’’ and inserting ‘‘Logistical oper9 ations’’; and 

10 (2) by striking subsection (c). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3423]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Intelligent Transportation Society of America; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS 
America) will hold a meeting of its Board of Directors on March 17, 
1995. The session is expected to focus on: (1) Review and Acceptance of 
Election Results; Installation of New Board Members; (2) Election of 
New Officers of the Board of Directors; (3) Report on ITS America 
Bylaws Revision; (4) Appointment of ITS America Coordinating Council 
Members; (5) Report of the Board Executive Committee; (6) ITS America 
Executive Director's Report; (7) Report on Federal Intelligent 
Transportation Systems (ITS) Initiatives; (8) Report of the ITS America 
Coordinating Council; (9) Report on the ITS America Fifth Annual 
Meeting; (10) Report of the International Liaison Committee, ITS World 
Congress Planning; (11) Report and Discussion Regarding ITS America 
Membership Development; (12) Discussion of Responsibility of Boards of 
Directors; (13) New Board of Directors Committee Appointments; and (14) 
Report of the ITS America Deployment Task Force. ITS America provides a 
forum for national discussion and recommendations on ITS activities 
including programs, research needs, strategic planning, standards, 
international liaison, and priorities. The charter for the utilization 
of ITS America establishes this organization as an advisory committee 
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. app. 2, when 
it provides advice or recommendations to DOT officials on ITS policies 
and programs. (56 FR 9400, March 6, 1991).

DATES: The Board of Directors of ITS America will meet on March 17, 
1995, from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m., e.t.

ADDRESSES: Sheraton Washington Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20008, (202) 328-2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Materials associated with this meeting 
may be examined at the offices of ITS America, 400 Virginia Avenue SW., 
Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20024. Persons desiring further information 
or wishing to speak at this meeting should contact Mr. Chris Body at 
ITS America by telephone at (202) 484-4131 or by FAX at (202) 484-3483. 
The DOT contact is Mr. Gary Euler, FHWA, HVH-1, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-2201. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. 
to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays.

(23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48)

    Issued on: February 3, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-3423 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
NUMBER 13-10-00359-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOSEPH CHAFFIN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Joseph Chaffin, attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for 

aggravated assault. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed 

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a 

timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the 
2

merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on June 11, 2009. Appellant filed 

his notice of appeal on July 6, 2010. On September 30, 2010, the Clerk of this Court 

notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected and that the 

appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of 

receipt of the Court=s directive. Appellant’s counsel has filed a response to the Court=s 

directive indicating that without a timely written notice of appeal and motion for extension 

of time to file notice of appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction. 

Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed 

within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after 

the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a 

timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety 

days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2). 

The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the 

deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying 

with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.

Appellant=s notice of appeal, filed more than twelve months after sentence was 

imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See 

Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a 

post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; 

however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX.
3

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, ' 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 

S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

14th day of October, 2010.
#### FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PENDER COUNTY et al.

(Filed 3 May, 1933.)

Appeal and Error K c—

Where it appears from the record that the Court made an error in calculating the amount recoverable by plaintiff a petition to rehear will he granted and the error corrected.

Petition to rehear.

*I. C. Wright for plaintiff.*

*C. E. McCullen and Bryan & Campbell for Board of Education.*

BhogueN, J.

The cause was considered in *Fidelity Co. v. Board of Education,*202 N. C., 354, 162 S. E., 763. The petition to rehear as-*608sei'ts that the writer of the opinion made an error of calculation in assuming that the amount of retained percentage in controversy was $4,375.20, whereas in fact the retained percentage based upon the contract price, would amount to $7,442.70. A reexamination of the record discloses that the contention of the plaintiff is correct and that such error was made. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover the sum of $4,375.20, and it is so adjudged.

Petition allowed.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 12312

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

TEDIE ROCHELLE BARROW, APRIL LATASHA THOMAS, JAWON WYKEEN TY'QUAN THOMAS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

versus FLOWERS HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION, HEIN N. DAO, M.D., Medical Doctor, PHILIP T. WILSON, D.O., Osteopathic, (Hospitialist),

Defendants

- Appellees. USCA11 Case: 23-12312 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 23

- 12312

____________________ Appeal from the United Sta tes District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:23

- cv

- 00220

- ECM

- SMD

____________________
Before N EWSOM , B R ASHER , and A BUDU , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. The statutory time limit required Tedie Barrow, April Thomas, and Jawon Thomas to file a notice of appeal on or before June 12, 2023, which was the first business day after the 30

- day period following the entry of final judgmen t on May 11, 2023.
28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (7), 26(a)(1)(C). However, the plaintiffs did not file their notice of appeal until July 6, 2023. Additionally , there is no basis in the record for relief under Federal Rules of Appell ate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin. , 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that t he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a c ivil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and we cannot entertain an appeal that is out of time )

. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 23-12312 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 2 of 2