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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4470

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 8, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend 

the authorization of appropriations for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program from fiscal year 

2005 to 2010.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4470 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN RESTORATION PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) STAKEHOLDERS CONFERENCE.—For purposes of 

4 carrying out section 121 of the Federal Water Pollution 

5 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1273), the Lake Pontchartrain, 

6 Louisiana, basin stakeholders conference convened on 

7 February 25, 2002, shall be treated as being a manage8 ment conference convened under section 320 of such Act 

9 (33 U.S.C. 1330). 

10 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The first 

11 sentence of section 121(f)(1) of the Federal Water Pollu12 tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1273(f)(1)) is amended by 

13 inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, 

14 $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $20,000,000 for 

15 each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010’’. 

16 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION. 

17 The second section 121 of the Federal Water Pollu18 tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1274; relating to wet weather 

19 watershed projects) is redesignated as section 122.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000221

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ISETTE PIKAKE KAEHUAEA SMYTHE and JAMIE KALEINANI SMYTHE

ESPRECION, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

EMMA NAOMI MEYERS aka NAOMI EMMA HOLT; BUSHROD G. MEYERS,

Defendants-Appellants; 

and

JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; 

DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10,

Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 1CC161002245)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

Emma Naomi Meyers and Bushrod G. Meyers (the Meyerses)

appeal from the "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for a Writ of

Ejectment" and the "Writ of Ejectment" entered by the Circuit

Court of the First Circuit on March 1, 2019.1 We affirm.

This case is about land (the Property) owned by the

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). Mervin Smythe leased

the Property from DHHL. The Meyerses lived there. After Mervin

died there was a dispute between the Meyerses and Mervin's

nieces, Isette Pikake Kaehuae Smythe and Jamie Kaleinani Smythe

1 The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000221

18-APR-2024

08:21 AM

Dkt. 55 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Esprecion (the Nieces) over who would succeed to Mervin's lease. 

After a contested case hearing the Hawaiian Homes Commission

ordered Mervin's lease transferred to Nieces, retroactive to

June 26, 2012. Emma appealed. The circuit court affirmed. Emma

filed a secondary appeal. We affirmed. Meyers v. Hawaiian Homes

Comm'n, No. CAAP-18-0000801, 2023 WL 4636728 (Haw. App. July 20,

2023) (mem.) (Meyers I).

Nieces filed the complaint below against the Meyerses

on December 9, 2016. The complaint alleged that Nieces were DHHL

lessees; they acquired their interests from Mervin by order of

the Commission; and the Meyerses lived on their property and

refused to vacate. Nieces sought, among other things, a writ of

ejectment. Nieces moved for partial summary judgment and a writ

of ejectment. The Order and Writ were entered on March 1, 2019. 

This appeal followed.

The Meyerses argue that the Commission erred by

ordering that Nieces succeed to Mervin's lease. Emma, who was a

party in Meyers I, and Bushrod, who is in privity with Emma, are

precluded from challenging the Commission's Order. Bremer v.

Weeks, 104 Hawai#i 43, 53, 85 P.3d 150, 160 (2004). Even if

claim or issue preclusion did not apply, the circuit court

applied the correct law to the uncontroverted facts. The "Order

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment and for a Writ of Ejectment" and the

"Writ of Ejectment," both entered on March 1, 2019, are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 18, 2024.

On the briefs:

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

E. Mason Martin III, Presiding Judge

for Defendants-Appellants.

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Ryan G.S. Au, Associate Judge

for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                          NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                                13,964
<SECURITIES>                                          000
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                          000
<INVENTORY>                                           000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      9,641
<PP&E>                                                381,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                        47,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        362,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 6,488
<BONDS>                                               113,171
<COMMON>                                              13,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 000
<PREFERRED>                                           000
<OTHER-SE>                                            228,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          362,044
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      632,068
<CGS>                                                 000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         36,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    9,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       16,972
<INCOME-TAX>                                          000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   16,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                        3,800
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       (306)
<CHANGES>                                             000
<NET-INCOME>                                          20,466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.54
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                              EXHIBIT 23


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

MONSANTO COMPANY:

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in Monsanto Company's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-36636, 2-76696, 2-90152,
33-13197, 33-21030, 33-39704, 33-39705, 33-39706, 33-39707, 33-49717,
33-53363, 33-53365, 33-53367, 333-02783, 333-02961, 333-02963,
333-33531, 333-38599, 333-45341 and 333-76653) and Registration
Statements on Form S-4 (Nos. 333-66175, 333-73233 and 333-30824) of our
report dated February 25, 2000, incorporated by reference in this annual
report on Form 10-K of Monsanto Company for the year ended December 31,
1999.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
March 17, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32(a)

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Jordan Industries,
Inc., an Illinois corporation (the "Registrant"), hereby certifies that the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended September
30, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78m(a)) and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

Date: November 14, 2006


/s/ John W. Jordan II
-------------------------------------
John W. Jordan II
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28253]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-182-000.
    Applicants: Gulf States Transmission LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Housekeeping on 
11-18-14 to be effective 12/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141118-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-183-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 11/18/14 
Negotiatied Rates--NJR Energy Services Company (RTS) 2890-14 to be 
effective 11/18/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141118-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or 
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests 
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to 
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 19, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28253 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000839950
<NAME> NORTH COAST ENERGY 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         922,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,210,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    160,455
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,370,201
<PP&E>                                      30,356,796
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,499,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,362,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,978,169
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       107,927
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,444
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,108,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,362,220
<SALES>                                      1,849,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,849,495
<CGS>                                        1,521,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,521,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (14,875)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             265,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             75,991
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    75,991
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Christopher Anzures v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00157

- CR

Trial court case number: MD

- 0380949

Trial cour t: County Court at Law N o 3 of Galveston County

Appellant ’ s motion for rehearing is denied. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Richard Hightower

___ ______ ___________ Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justice Hightowe r.

Date: _ March 2, 2021

____
Proposal:

Put together a dedicated conference series on “Simulations for Additive Manufacturing”

with computational benchmarks as a key component.

modeled after the NUMISHEET benchmark

Robert Wagner, J. K. Lee, Eiji Nakamachi, Norman Wang (1988)

Proposal Made at National Academies Workshop

Washington, DC, October 7, 2015

36

AM-Bench: A proposed benchmarking series

for additive manufacturing

Lyle Levine and R. E. Ricker

Materials Measurement Laboraotry

National Institute of Standards and Technology
Additive Manufacturing Benchmark Test Series

(AM-Bench)

36

Description: 

A continuing series of highly controlled benchmark tests for 

additive manufacturing, in conjunction with a conference series 

Goals:

1. To allow modelers to test their simulations against rigorous, 

highly controlled additive manufacturing benchmark test data

2. To encourage additive manufacturing practitioners to develop 

novel mitigation strategies for challenging build scenarios

Scope:

Metals and polymers using multiple build methods will be 

supported.

First Conference Venue:

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 
Challenge Classes

1 - Model

2 - Build

AM Bench 

Steering 

Committee

Local Organizing 

Committee

Periodic Conference to Compare Results

Scientific

Advisory Committee

Benchmark

Test #1 Committee

Benchmark

Test #2

Committee

Benchmark

Test #3 Committee

Builds - In-situ Measurements - Dimensions – Microstructure – Properties
AM-Bench Exploratory Committee

40 participating organizations, 59 members

AFRL, ARL, NRL 

NASA (Ames, Glenn, Goddard, Marshall, JPL) 

ANL, LANL, LLNL, NIST, ORNL, Sandia

National Academies

EWI, Quad City Manuf. Lab.

3DSIM, ESI Group (France), GE Global Research, Honeywell, IHI Corporation 

(Japan), Lockheed Martin, MadeInSpace, Pratt & Whitney, QuesTek, UTRC 

Clemson, CMU, Imperial College (UK), Luleå Univ. Tech. (Sweden), 

Northwestern, MS State, NIU, Purdue, TX A&M, U. AL, UConn, U. TX El Paso, 

U. Wisc. 

38

Role of Committee:

• Define benchmark tests

• Define stakeholders

• Determine scope and organization structure
AM-Bench Status and Plans

37

1. 4th (final) draft of foundational documents are being written 

with input from Exploratory Committee

2. AM-Bench International Steering Committee will be assembled

3. Current Exploratory Committee will become the Scientific 

Advisory Committee

4. Local Organizing Committee for first conference (at NIST) will 

be assembled

5. First set of benchmark tests and volunteers (from multiple 

organizations) will be selected

6. Timeline will be determined and announced

7. Work on first set of benchmark tests will commence
Exhibit 32.2

                              CNB BANCORP, INC.

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George A. Morgan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




By /s/ George A. Morgan
-----------------------------------------
George A. Morgan, Chief Financial Officer
May 10, 2004
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Modern Controls, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-27730, 33-42255 and 33-49752) on Form S-8 of Modern Controls, Inc. of our
reports dated February 14, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Modern Controls, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of income and cash flows and related financial
statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1996, which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in the
December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Modern Controls, Inc.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 24, 1997
Exhibit 12.1
 NASH-FINCH COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Fiscal Year EndedJanuary 1,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    December 30,
    
    
    December 29,
    
    
    January 3,(in thousands, except ratios)
    
    2005
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2009Fixed Charges:Interest expense on
indebtedness
    
    $
    27,181
    
    
    $
    24,732
    
    
    $
    26,644
    
    
    $
    23,581
    
    
    $
    21,523Rent expense (1/3
of total rent
expense)
    
    
    9,901
    
    
    
    10,386
    
    
    
    9,966
    
    
    
    9,057
    
    
    
    9,496Total fixed charges
    
    $
    37,082
    
    
    $
    35,118
    
    
    $
    36,610
    
    
    $
    32,638
    
    
    $
    31,019Earnings:Income before
provision for
income taxes
    
    $
    19,199
    
    
    $
    66,866
    
    
    $
    (17,493
    )
    
    $
    57,522
    
    
    $
    58,734Fixed charges
    
    
    37,082
    
    
    
    35,118
    
    
    
    36,610
    
    
    
    32,638
    
    
    
    31,019Total earnings
    
    $
    56,281
    
    
    $
    101,984
    
    
    $
    19,117
    
    
    $
    90,160
    
    
    $
    89,753Ratio
    
    
    1.52
    
    
    
    2.90
    
    
    
    0.52
    
    
    
    2.76
    
    
    
    2.89
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DIANE SMITH, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0616-CG-M 

 : 

BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSION, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

ORDER

 After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the 

opinion of this Court. 

 It is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal (Docs. 21-22) be granted 

as to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, but denied as to Smith’s claim for retaliation. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00616-CG-M Document 37 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary
L. Dreher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|/s/ |  | Gary L. Dreher                           
|    |  |                                          
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2003
Name ___________________________________________________ Last 4 Digits of PID__________________

Course________ Section ______

Standards Literacy Early Assessment

Fall 2016

1a. Explain what a Standard is (i.e. Technical, Industrial, Environmental, Regulatory, etc.), and give a specific 

example of a Standard.

1b. I feel very confident explaining what a standard is and providing an example:

 ☐ Strongly disagree ☐ Somewhat disagree ☐ Undecided ☐ Somewhat agree ☐ Strongly agree

2a. What role(s) do science, technology, or engineering play in the development of Standards? Use a specific 

example to illustrate.

2b. I feel very confident with explaining what role(s) do science, technology, or engineering play in the 

development of Standards:

 ☐ Strongly disagree ☐ Somewhat disagree ☐ Undecided ☐ Somewhat agree ☐ Strongly agree
3. How might other factors (i.e. economics, societal history, political lobbying, etc.) influence the development of 

Standards? Use a specific example to illustrate.

3b. I feel very confident in explaining what other factors (i.e. economics, societal history, political lobbying, 

etc.) influence the development of Standards: 

 ☐ Strongly disagree ☐ Somewhat disagree ☐ Undecided ☐ Somewhat agree ☐ Strongly agree

4a. Explain and predict the potential outcomes or affects (economic, environmental, social, political, etc.) of the 

implementation of Standards? Use a specific example to illustrate. 

4b. I feel very confident in explaining and predicting the potential outcomes or affects (economic, 

environmental, social, political, etc.) of the implementation of Standards:

 ☐ Strongly disagree ☐ Somewhat disagree ☐ Undecided ☐ Somewhat agree ☐ Strongly agree

5. Explain how Standards are created, implemented and regulated. 

5b. I feel very confident in explaining how Standards are created, implemented and regulated:

 ☐ Strongly disagree ☐ Somewhat disagree ☐ Undecided ☐ Somewhat agree ☐ Strongly agree