alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# RCPP Easements

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Programs & Initiatives 
-  Regional Conservation Partnership Program 
-  RCPP Easements 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program Easements

Conservation easements protect working agricultural lands, limit nonagricultural uses, and facilitate the restoration and enhancement of wetlands.

NRCS’s RCPP easement programs are intended to complement other NRCS easement programs, filling the gaps other NRCS easement programs don’t address. They can be used to conserve various eligible land types that meet the goals of the RCPP project. RCPP easements provide expanded opportunities to tailor easement structure specifically to RCPP project purposes.

RCPP offers two types of easements:  U.S.-Held Conservation Easements and Entity-Held Conservation Easements. Both require Farm Bill eligible lands and landowners, but land uses and land cover are potentially less restrictive in RCPP than they are in other NRCS easement programs.

**U.S.-Held Conservation Easements**
              - Available for any agriculturally linked land use, such as cropland, grasslands, natural wetlands, or riparian areas buffering agricultural lands.
              - Purchased by NRCS directly from eligible landowners of eligible lands and held by the United States.
              - The purpose is to restore, protect, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the conservation values on eligible lands that are stated in the individual RCPP warranty easement deed.

There are three levels of U.S.-held easement restrictions based on the easement purpose.
              - Highly Restrictive                  - Easement for protection of conservation values.
                - Restoration/protection of native habitats in natural/historic condition.
                - Minimal disturbance, no agricultural uses.
              - Moderately Restrictive                  - Easement for conservation uses.
                - Management of specific habitats to provide conservation benefits.
                - Conservation activities to manage/maintain conservation values.
              - Minimally Restrictive                  - Easement for working lands.
                - Protection of agricultural uses, including grazing uses.
                - Rights related to agricultural use remains.

The term of an RCPP U.S.-held easement must be in perpetuity, except where state law prohibits a permanent easement. In such cases, the easement term will be for the maximum duration allowed under state law.

**Entity-Held Conservation Easements**
              - Eligible for any land use.
              - Driven by conservation benefits and resource concerns identified in the RCPP project.
              - Can be used to protect working agricultural lands as well as other eligible land, including forest land, wetlands, and riparian areas.
#### Karle, Appellant, vs. Town of Commonwealth, Respondent.

*December 4, 1940*

January *7, 1941.*

*501For the appellant there were briefs by *Irving W. Smith*of Niagara, and *Roy R. Derham*of Iron Mountain, Michigan, and oral argument by *Mr. Smith.*

*Allen C. Wittkopf*of Florence, for the. respondent.

Fairchild, J.

The appellant bases his claim for recovery of damages entirely upon the proposition that a nuisance was maintained by defendant. It is a general rule that a community has no more right to erect and maintain a nuisance than a private individual possesses. Although the complaint is somewhat indefinite as to who removed the culvert, thus creating what is claimed to be the nuisance, it may be said that the allegations of the complaint do not show the acts to have been those of the respondent. The concession made upon the argument that the culvert was removed by others than the town warrants a determination of the cause presented as though the complaint were made more definite and certain upon that point. *Waube v. Warrington,*216 Wis. 603, 258 N. W. 497, 98 A. L. R. 394.

*502The car in which appellant was riding when injured came from a farmhouse and entered the abandoned highway at the place where the private road intersected it. No barriers or signs were at that particular point to warn the driver of the abandonment of that section of the highway. Appellant admits the place where the alleged nuisance existed was on property belonging to individuals because the stretch of old road had been abandoned and therefore reverted to private ownership, but he contends it was the duty oí respondent to have informed the new owners of the condition existing on the land thus passing to their control by the abandonment proceedings, and cites authorities which he contends sustain his argument. Those authorities might apply if this were a case where the community stood in the position oí a proprietor. The resolution of the town board, under which the land formerly traversed by the highway was abandoned as a highway, was but a formal step in the process and no cause of action is here asserted of failure on the part of the town to barricade or place warning signs at the point where plaintiff and his host turned into' the abandoned portion of the old highway.

No cause of action being set forth on which appellant may recover against the respondent and it being conceded that no further facts bearing upon the matter exist, the demurrer was properly sustained and the complaint must be dismissed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.2


                                                               October 4, 1999


Kenneth  Koehler
President
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company
6001 Landerhaven Drive
Mayfield Heights, Ohio  44124

Dear Ken:

                     I am very pleased that you have agreed to assume the
position of President of Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (the "Bank"). This
letter will confirm our understanding with respect to certain terms and
conditions of your employment relationship with the Bank.

                     Your employment as President of the Bank will continue
until you resign of your own accord or until the Chairman of the Board of
Directors (the "Chairman") requests your resignation. If the Chairman requests
your resignation, you agree that you will submit your resignation immediately,
regardless of the reason for the request. In addition, you acknowledge and agree
that the Board of Directors may remove you as President at any time, for any
reason.

                      If the Chairman requests your resignation other than for
cause within one (1) year of the date of your appointment as President, you will
receive a severance payment equal to your then-current base salary for a period
of six (6) months. If the Chairman requests your resignation other than for
cause more than one (1) year after the date of your appointment as President,
but less than two (2) years after such date, you will receive a severance
payment equal to your then-current base salary for a period of nine (9) months.
If the Chairman requests your resignation other than for cause more than two (2)
years after the date of your appointment as President, you will receive a
severance payment equal to your then-current base salary for a period of twelve
(12) months.

                       In order to be entitled to receive any of the severance
payments described above, you will be required to submit a written letter of
resignation and an executed release in a form provided by the Bank. You will not
be entitled to any severance payments of other continued salary or benefits if
the Chairman requests your resignation for cause or if you resign without being
requested to do so by the Chairman.

                       If you agree with all of these terms and conditions,
please sign a copy of this letter and return it to me. I look forward to
working with you in your new position.

                                            METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY

                                            /s/ Robert M. Kaye
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            By:  Robert M. Kaye
                                                 Chairman

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

/s/ Kenneth T. Koehler              10/3/99
---------------------------         -------
Kenneth Koehler                      Date
#### Maryland Casualty Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *James E. Coleman,*attorney, and *John S. Barry*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *John E. Martin,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general

For the respondent Harold.Wesela: *Samuel J. Schrinsky*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**KYLE B. PIERCE,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF**

**LEHIGH COUNTY & COURT ADMINISTRATOR, WILLIAM BERNDT,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 33 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of April, 2016, the Application for L eave to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Mot ion in** 

**Request of Counsel are** DENIED

**.**
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 146 -CR

Ca r la D e ann R oll a , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-02 -05 2 , HO NORAB LE GARY L. STEEL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Carla De ann R o l l a appeals an or der r evokingcommunity supervision. The r ecor d does not contain the tria l court’s c ertification of the rig ht of appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2). Th e dis tr ic t c le rk

ha s n oti fi e d thi s Court that the tr ia l c ourt re fu se s to pr e pa

re a c e rt if ic a tio n b e c a

us e “the c ertifica

tion is not require d in [ revoc ation] cases.” Rule 25.2(a) (2) state s: “The tria l court shall enter a ce rtification of the defe ndant’s ri g ht of a pp e a l e a c h ti me it e nte rs a

jud g me nt o f guil t or other appealable order .” (Emphasis adde d.) An orde r re voking c ommunity supervision is an appe alable or der. The a ppeal is abated. The tria l court is order ed to pr epar e and file the ce rtification of Rolla’s rig ht of appeal as require d by rule 25.2(a)(2)
. A supplemental c lerk’s r ecor d containing the c ourt ’s c e rt if

ic a tio n s ha ll b e tender e d f or fi lin g no late r t

ha n f if te e n d ay s f

ro m th e date of

thi s opinion. SeeTex. R. App. P . 34.5(c) (2), 37.1.2 __________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Concurringand DissentingOpinion by J ustice Pury ear ; ConcurringOpinion by J ustice He nson; Supplemental Opinion by J ustice Patterson Abated Filed: Jul y

15, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
null

447.5474
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41011 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JAIME ANDRADE-SIERRA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15 -CR- 1484 -1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jaime Andrade

Sierra has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Andrade-Sierra ha s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED March 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41011 Document: 00513908888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2017No. 16

- 41011

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41011 Document: 00513908888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2017
No. 89-1905.

#### Wisconsin Public Intervenor et al. *v.*Mortier et al.

Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari granted.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Modification of IPSN's SCANAIR Fuel Rod Transient Code for High Burnup VVER Fuel (NUREG/IA-0165, RRC KI 2181, IPSN 99/09)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0165 (PDF 2.72 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** May 1999

**Prepared by:** K. Mikitiouk, INR–RRC A. Shestopalov, K. Lioutov, L. Yegorova, G. Abyshov, NSI–RRC

Institute of Nuclear Reactors of Russian Research Center "Kurchatov Institute" Nuclear Safety Institute of Russian Research Center "Kurchatov Institute" Kurchatov Square 1 Moscow 12382 Russia

**Prepared for:** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Institute for Protection and Nuclear Safety (France), and Ministry of Science and Technologies of Russian Federation

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The IPSN's transient fuel rod code, SCANAIR, has been modified to analyze pulse tests with high-burnup VVER fuel rods in the Impulse Graphite Reactor (IGR). New and modified models of separate phenomena have been developed, including models for gas plenum temperature, heat transfer from the cladding to the stagnant coolant, the effect of the cladding strain rate on the yield stress, and interruption of the cladding mechanical calculation. Thermal and mechanical properties for the VVER's fuel and Zr-1%Nb cladding were added to the SCANAIR data base on material properties. Changes in the input data file are described, and a sample calculation is presented with the modified code. A FORTRAN listing for the new and modified models is given in an Appendix A.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit 13.1

ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned, Shih-Jye Cheng, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda)
LTD. (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 solely for purposes
of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Date: April 24, 2015



/s/ Shih-Jye ChengName:

Shih-Jye ChengTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
# Heavy Use Area Protection (Sq. Ft.) (561) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Heavy Use Area Protection (Sq. Ft.) (561) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Heavy Use Area Protection (Sq. Ft.) (561).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Heavy Use Area Protection (Sq. Ft.) (561) (9/2020) Standard Document(76.84 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Heavy Use Area Protection (Sq. Ft.) (561) Overview(376.92 KB)

Heavy Use Area Protection (Sq. Ft.) (561) CPPE(28.12 KB)

Heavy Use Area Protection (Sq. Ft.) (561) Network Diagram(71.25 KB)

## Conservation at Work: Heavy Use Area Protection

This video explores how Ronnie Cook of Wagener, South Carolina, implemented the heavy use area conservation practice on his beef operation.

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
---

Exhibit 13.1.

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

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Meridian Co., Ltd. (the
  "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hyeon
  Seong Myeong, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of
  the Company.



By: /s/ Hyeon Seong Myeong 
  Name: Myeong, Hyeon Seong 
  Title: President, CEO, Director 
  Date: July 14, 2005



---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CORY A. GARRIES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00009-F)

Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. George

E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi

Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cory A. Garries pled guilty to a criminal information

charging him with sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2242 (West 2000

& Supp. 2007), and was sentenced to a term of twenty years

imprisonment and a life term of supervised release. In this

appeal, Garries contests a four-level adjustment for aggravated

sexual abuse applied by the district court under U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2A3.1(b)(1) (2006), and also argues that his

life term of supervised release exceeded the statutory maximum. We

affirm in part and dismiss in part.

 In his plea agreement, Garries waived appellate review

of “any issues that relate to the establishment of the advisory

guideline range . . . .” Our review of the record discloses that

the district court advised him about the waiver provision at the

guilty plea hearing, and that his waiver was knowing and voluntary.

See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399-401 (4th Cir.

2002). Further, under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(k) (West 2000 & Supp.

2007), for a violation of § 2242, “the authorized term of

supervised release . . . is any term of years not less than five,

or life.”

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court, but dismiss that portion of the appeal in which Garries

contests the calculation of his advisory guideline range. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned officer of Hines Horticulture, Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: August 14, 2006
                            /s/ CLAUDIA M. PIEROPAN
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                                Claudia M. Pieropan
                                Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
                                (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, J.
Brian Nichols, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated
this 13th day
of November, 2009








J. BRIAN
      NICHOLSJ.
      Brian NicholsChief
      Executive Officer