alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
5300

5700

5800

5600

5700

5600

5800

5300

5500

5300

5600

5800

5700

5100

5500

5700

5300

5800

5400

5700

5800

5400

5800

5500

5900

5700

5700

5400

5800

5400

5200

5400

5900

5500

5700

5700

5500

5800

5800

5900

5700

5400

3 B IA

3

B IA

P L E A S A N T V A L L E Y R D

P L E A S A N T V A L L E Y R D

P L E A S A N T V A L L E Y R D

S T AT E L IN E R D

P L E A S A N T V A L L E Y R D

Owyhee River

Owyhee

River

Owyhee

River

O

w

y

h

ee River Ross Slough

Ross

Slo

u

gh

Ross

Slough

Owyhee

River

Owyhee River

Antelope

Spring

Pleasant

Valley

Dell Dick

Windmill

22'

00'

22'30"

00'

07'

116°15'

30"

17'

42°07'

116°

20' 30"

42°

20' 17'30" 15'

30"

116°

116°

42°

42°

30"

2'

5' 5'

2'30" 30"

160 000

FEET

46

5

46

5 5

46

46

46

000m

46

5 5 5

46

46

46

46

46

5

5

46

46

46

5

46

46

5 5

000m

000m

46

5

46

5

5

46

46

5

46

5 5

46

46

46

46

5

5

46

59

62

60

N

53

52

63

58

62

57

60

61

52 60

58

53

53

63

55

56

52

55

56

59

61

57

54

52

58

51

57

59

51

56

54

E

54

N

57

61

53

55

61

54

60

56

58

59

FEET

000

000

2

2 480

460 000

FEET

FEET

130

000mE

Flying

H Ranch

Ross

Lake

Mountain

View Lake Juniper

Basin SE

Groundhog

Reservoir Hat Peak

Jarvis

Pasture

Juniper

Basin

The

Point

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

IDAHO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

JUNIPER BASIN SE, ID

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

JUNIPER BASIN SE QUADRANGLE

IDAHO

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 11T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Idaho Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2002

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

M

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 N

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 28 ́

8 MILS

14° 2 ́

250 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

11T

NG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ ooOoo

‐‐‐‐

Masooda Syed,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services,

Respondent. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20120312

‐ CA

F I L E D

(September 20, 2012)

2012 UT App 266

‐‐‐‐‐

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Masooda Syed, San Diego, California, Petitioner Pro Se

Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Department of Workforce

Services

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges McHugh, Thorne, and Roth.

¶1 Masooda Syed petitions for review of the decision of the Workforce Appeals

Board (the Board) affirming the denial of unemployment benefits based upon Syed’s

discharge for just cause. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for

summary disposition. We decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

¶2 Syed does not dispute the Board’s conclusion that theft of money from a

donation box located inside the business constitutes just cause to support termination.

Instead, Syed argues that the Board erred in finding that she had stolen money out of

the donation box. Syed asserts that she was “set up” to make it look like she had stolen

the money because her supervisor did not like her and because she was due a

substantial amount of severance pay since her position was about to be eliminated due

to a reduction in force.20120312

‐ CA 2 ¶3 This court will reverse an administrative agency’s findings of fact “only if the

findings are not supported by substantial evidence.” Drake v. Industrial Comm’n

, 939

P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). “Substantial evidence is that quantum and quality of relevant

evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.”

Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd.

, 2011 UT App 68, ¶ 9, 252 P.3d 372. Furthermore,

appellate courts will not reassess an agency’s credibility determinations or reweigh the

evidence in a proceeding where conflicting evidence is presented. See Questar Pipeline v.

Utah Tax Comm’n

, 850 P.2d 1175, 1178 (Utah 1993). Rather, it is the agency’s prerogative

to assign weight to conflicting witness testimony. See id.

¶4 In its decision, the Board deferred to the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)

credibility determination. The ALJ heard testimony from both Syed’s supervisor, who

placed the marked bills in the collection box, and Syed’s manager, to whom Syed

confessed that she had stolen the money. The ALJ also heard Syed’s testimony that she

had not stolen the money. After hearing all of the testimony, the ALJ found that the

company’s witnesses were more credible than Syed. Furthermore, the Board found that

Syed provided no evidence to support her accusations that she had been “set up.”

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that Syed

took the money from the donation box.

¶5 Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

____________________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh,

Presiding Judge

____________________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________ Stephen L. Roth, Judge
#### Joseph PAIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF ALBANY, GEORGIA, James Arrowood, Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of City of Albany Fire Department, James Carswell, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Fire Chief of City of Albany Fire Department, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 04-14803

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 04-00044-CV-WLS-1-2.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 24, 2005.

Richard M. Eseoffery, Richard M. Escoffery, John Lewis Sapp, Elarbee, Thompson Sapp & Wilson LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Maurice Luther King, Jr., The Law Offices of Maurice Luther King, P.C., Albany, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before HULL, WILSON and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After reviewing the district court’s complete and detailed order, we find this appeal without merit.

AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 2217** 

MICHELLE JOHNSON BAH; MOUNTAGA BAH , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK NA , Defendant

– Appellee,

and

HSBC BANK USA; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; R EAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; WELLS FARGO BANK WEST N.A.; HUD , Defendant s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Roger W. Titus , District Judge. ( 8:08

- cv
- 03429

- RWT )

Submitted : December 9, 2010 Decided: December 2 2 , 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mary E. Goulet, WHITHAM, CURTIS, CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant s . Amy S. Owen, E lizabet h S. Finberg , COCHRAN & OWEN, L.L.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michelle Johnson Bah and Mountaga Bah appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their civil actio n, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), in which they sought to prevent
foreclosure proceedings against their home. We have reviewed
the record and the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

d istrict court. Bah v. Wells Fargo Bank NA , No. 8:08

- cv
- 03429

- RWT (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2009). We deny the Appellee’s motion to

strike and for sanctions , and we dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in th e materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 THAT WERE
FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,006
<SECURITIES>                                   239,643
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               400,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 674,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,630,357
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        330
<COMMON>                                        55,081
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,410,708)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   774,649
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (111,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (111,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (111,904)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.000)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.000)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
FRANKLIN BANCORPORATION, INC.

EXHIBIT 11


COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS - EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD
                                                                             ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                      1997                    1996
                                                                      ----                    ----
<S>                                                               <C>                    <C>
Net earnings                                                      $    1,383             $      964

Primary earnings (A)                                                   1,383                    964

Fully diluted earnings (B)                                             1,383                    964

Weighted average shares outstanding                                6,487,577              6,317,892

Dilutive common stock equivalents for primary
 earnings per share                                                  399,961                287,130
                                                                  ----------             ----------


Weighted average shares and common equivalent shares
 outstanding for primary earnings per share (C)                    6,887,538              6,605,022


Equivalent shares assuming full dilution                             400,043                287,130
                                                                  ----------             ----------

Weighted average shares and common equivalent
shares for fully diluted earnings per share (D)                    6,887,620              6,605,022


Earnings per share

Primary (A)/(C)                                                   $     0.20             $     0.15

Fully diluted (B)/(D)                                             $     0.20             $     0.15
</TABLE>



                                 Page 15 of 15
No. 59318.

protest 214336-K (Seattle).

#### Clarence S. Holmes *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
----

Action brought on 13 October 2004 by French Republic against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-425/04)

(2005/C 19/64)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 October 2004 by the French Republic, represented by its Agents Ronny Abraham, Géraud de Bergues and Stéphanie Ramet, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on an infringement of essential procedural requirements and the rights of the defence. According to the applicant, the Commission based its decision on factors, namely ministerial proposals of 12 July 2002, which are outside the scope of the procedure as defined by the decision to open the procedure. The applicant claims that the Commission should have extended the procedure by adopting a new decision to open it.

The applicant also relies on an error of law in relation to the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. According to the applicant, the Commission wrongly applied the principle of the private investor who is fully informed of the conditions of a market economy. According to the applicant, since the ministerial proposals did not amount to a commitment on the part of the State and could not be categorised as State aid, the principle of the fully-informed private investor was not applicable. The applicant also maintains that the Commission wrongly held there to be aid on the basis of two separate events which, taken separately, it would have to accept did not comprise the elements necessary for the categorisation of State aid to apply. Those events are the statements of July 2002 and the draft shareholder's advance of December 2002.

Thirdly, the applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment when it took the view that an analysis of the contents of the interview of 12 July 2002 allowed it to be concluded that the State was giving an undertaking as a shareholder, which would have had an influence on the markets in December.

Lastly, the applicant submits that the reasoning adopted contains contradictions and inadequacies which lead to the contested decision being vitiated on the ground of a lack of proper reasoning.

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PATRICK L. GUILLORY, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C06-747-MJP-MJB

)

v. )

)

SNOHOMISH COUNTY JAIL, et al., ) ORDER DENYING MOTION

) FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to issue

subpoenas. (Dkt. # 34.) The Court, having considered the motion and the remainder of

the record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoenas (Dkt. #34) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff makes a second request that the Court issue eight (8) subpoenas on Defendants’

attorney and “mental health doc. in Ohio,” and effect service of those subpoenas by the

U.S. Marshal’s Service or any other person or officer. This Court denied Plaintiff’s

prior request for issuance of those subpoenas, based on Plaintiff’s lack of compliance

with the issuance requirements of Federal. Rule of Civil Procedure 45 when he failed to

specify on the subpoenas the place, date, and time at which the production and

inspection of the requested documents were to be made. See Dkt. #31. Although
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

Page - 2

Plaintiff has now corrected that defect in the subpoenas, he still has not satisfied the

issuance requirements of Rule 45, which provides in relevant part:

A subpoena must issue as follows:

* * *

(C) for production and inspection, if separate from a subpoena

commanding a person’s attendance, from the court for the district where

the production or inspection is to be made.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(C) (emphasis added). Because Plaintiff seeks production and

inspection of the requested documents at the Marion Correctional Institution in Marion,

Ohio, the subpoenas must issue from the court for that district. 

In order to avoid such defects in any future requests for issuance of subpoenas,

Plaintiff is advised to carefully review the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Further,

to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to obtain production of documents from party

opponents, he is advised to review the Federal Civil Procedure Rule governing such

discovery.

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for

Defendants, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman. 

DATED this 4th day of January, 2007.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge
Office of Grants and Training 

Preparedness Directorate 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20531 

G&T Information Bulletin 

No. 207 May 19, 2006 

TO: All Interested Parties 

FROM: Tracy A. Henke 

 Assistant Secretary 

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006 Competitive Training Grants Program (CTGP) 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Preparedness Directorate’s Office of Grants and 

Training (G&T) is pleased to announce the release of the Fiscal Year 2006 Competitive Training 

Grants Program (CTGP) Solicitation for Concept Papers. The CTGP solicitation will provide 

funding for national preparedness training initiatives that further the DHS mission of preparing 

the nation to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from incidents of terrorism 

involving weapons of mass destruction or catastrophic events. 

DHS is inviting applicants to submit concept papers providing a proposed program overview 

based on one of seven issue areas as outlined in the solicitation. A concept paper template has 

been developed by G&T to address critical elements of a viable training program. Applicants 

must use this template when submitting concept papers and must follow the specified formatting 

guidelines. 

Attached is the FY 2006 CTGP Solicitation for Concept Papers which contains in-depth 

information with regards to submission requirements, issue area descriptions, concept paper 

elements and templates, selection criteria, and other general requirements. Applicants must 

apply and submit concept papers through the Grants.gov website; application forms and 

instructions are available on www.grants.gov. In addition to the solicitation, attached is the 

concept paper template and the FY 2006 CTGP Fact Sheet providing an overview of the entire 

program. 

G&T appreciates your interest in the FY 2006 Competitive Training Grants Program and the 

opportunity to expand upon existing capacities for training emergency responders throughout the 

56 states and territories. If you have any further questions regarding the grant program, please 

contact G&T’s Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk at 1-800-368-6498.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

# AGENCY:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 7, 2023, announcing a Notice of request for information (RFI). The document contained incorrect date in the                         **DATES**                         section.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Carter A Roeber, Telephone number (240) 276-1488, Email:                         *Carter.Roeber@samhsa.hhs.gov,*                         or                         *EBPRC@samhsa.hhs.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of September 7, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-19272, on pages 61608 and 61609, in the second column, correct the                     **DATES**                     caption to read:                

Comments or feedback on this notice must be received by end of business day, November 7, 2023.

Dated: October 11, 2023.

Carlos Castillo,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-22792 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4162-20-P