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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Nature vs. nurture: Evidence for social learning of conflict behaviour in grizzly bears      

      January 1, 2016    

The propensity for a grizzly bear to develop conflict behaviours might be a result of social learning between mothers and cubs, genetic inheritance, or both learning and inheritance. Using non-invasive genetic sampling, we collected grizzly bear hair samples during 2011–2014 across southwestern Alberta, Canada. We targeted private agricultural lands for hair samples at grizzly bear incident sites, defining an incident as an occurrence in which the grizzly bear caused property damage, obtained anthropogenic food, or killed or attempted to kill livestock or pets. We genotyped 213 unique grizzly bears (118 M, 95 F) at 24 microsatellite loci, plus the amelogenin marker for sex. We used the program COLONY to assign parentage. We evaluated 76 mother-offspring relationships and 119 father-offspring relationships. We compared the frequency of problem and non-problem offspring from problem and non-problem parents, excluding dependent offspring from our analysis. Our results support the social learning hypothesis, but not the genetic inheritance hypothesis. Offspring of problem mothers are more likely to be involved in conflict behaviours, while offspring from non-problem mothers are not likely to be involved in incidents or human-bear conflicts themselves (Barnard’s test, p = 0.05, 62.5% of offspring from problem mothers were problem bears). There was no evidence that offspring are more likely to be involved in conflict behaviour if their fathers had been problem bears (Barnard’s test, p = 0.92, 29.6% of offspring from problem fathers were problem bears). For the mother-offspring relationships evaluated, 30.3% of offspring were identified as problem bears independent of their mother’s conflict status. Similarly, 28.6% of offspring were identified as problem bears independent of their father’s conflict status. Proactive mitigation to prevent female bears from becoming problem individuals likely will help prevent the perpetuation of conflicts through social learning.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Tabitha  Graves, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center

tgraves@usgs.gov

406-589-6645

## Related Content

#### Tabitha  Graves, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center

tgraves@usgs.gov

406-589-6645

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK) Headquarters          

2327 University WaySuite 2Bozeman, MT59715United States

406-994-7544

406-994-6556

### Explore Search

                  - canada
                  - Alberta

View All **
Darlene DEEGAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HSBC BANK USA, National Assoc. as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2026

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 04, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3510 

To prevent harm to the national security or endangering the military officers 

and civilian employees to whom internet publication of certain information applies, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To prevent harm to the national security or endangering 

the military officers and civilian employees to whom 

internet publication of certain information applies, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE DELAY. 

4 The STOCK Act (Public Law 112–105) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in section 8(a)(1), by striking ‘‘August 31, 

7 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2012’’; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3510 IS

1 (2) in section 11(a)(1), by striking ‘‘August 31, 

2 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2012’’. 

3 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF PTR REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

4 STOCK ACT. 

5 Effective September 30, 2012, for purposes of imple6 menting subsection (l) of section 103 of the Ethics in Gov7 ernment Act of 1978 (as added by section 6 of the STOCK 

8 Act, Public Law 112–105) for reporting individuals whose 

9 reports under section 101 of such Act (5 U.S.C. App. 101) 

10 are required to be filed with the Clerk of the House of 

11 Representatives, section 102(e) of such Act (5 U.S.C. App. 

12 102(e)) shall apply as if the report under such subsection 

13 (l) were a report under such section 101 but only with 

14 respect to the transaction information required under such 

15 subsection (l). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Method to identify wells that yield water that will be replaced by Colorado River water in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah      

      January 1, 1994    

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Document

Accounting for the use of Colorado River water is required by the U.S. Supreme Court decree, 1964, Arizona v. California. Water pumped from wells on the flood plain and from certain wells on alluvial slopes outside the flood plain is presumed to be river water and is accounted for as Colorado River water. A method was developed to identify wells outside the f1ood plain of the lower Colorado River that yield water that will be replaced by water from the river. The method provides a uniform criterion of identification for all users pumping water from wells. Wells that have a static water-level elevation equal to or below the accounting surface are presumed to yield water that will be replaced by water from the river. Wells that have a static water-level elevation above the accounting surface are presumed to yield water that will be replaced by water from precipitation and inflow from tributary valleys. 

The method is based on the concept of a river aquifer and an accounting surface within the river aquifer. The river aquifer consists of permeable, partly saturated sediments and sedimentary rocks that are hydraulically connected to the Colorado River so that water can move between the river and the aquifer in response to withdrawal of water from the aquifer or differences in water-level elevations between the river and the aquifer. The accounting surface represents the elevation and slope of the unconfined static water table in the river aquifer outside the flood plain and reservoirs that would exist if the river were the only source of water to the river aquifer. Maps at a scale of 1:100,000 show the extent and elevation of the accounting surface from the area surrounding Lake Mead to Laguna Dam near Yuma, Arizona.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Sandra Owen-Joyce

##### Hydrologist

Arizona Water Science Center

sjowen@usgs.gov

520-670-3309

## Related Content

#### Sandra Owen-Joyce

##### Hydrologist

Arizona Water Science Center

sjowen@usgs.gov

520-670-3309

### Study Area

### Contacts

#### Sandra Owen-Joyce

##### Hydrologist

Arizona Water Science Center

sjowen@usgs.gov

520-670-3309

### Explore Search

                  - Water
                  - United States
                  - Arizona
                  -  California
                  -  Nevada
                  -  Utah

View All **
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50779

USDC No. A-98-CR-281-2-JN

USDC No. A-00-CV-593-JN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CURTIS DARRYL NORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

-------------------- April 16, 2002

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Curtis Norris seeks a certificate of appealability (COA)

to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion.

Norris must obtain a COA to proceed on ap peal. S ee 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA may be issued only if Norris has

made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Norris can satisfy this standardO R D E R

No. 01-50779

- 2 -

if he shows "that 'reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for

that matter agree that) the [§ 2255 motion] should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Wheat v.

Johnson

, 238 F.3d 357, 359-60 (5th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert.

denied , 121 S. Ct. 2226 (2001). Furthermore, "[w]here a district

court has rejected constitutional claims on the merits,

. . . [t]he

[movant] must demonstrate that reasonab le jurists would find the

district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable

or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The district court made insufficient findings on the

controlling factual question, whether Norris requested counsel to

file an appeal and whether counsel agreed to do so. S ee United

States v. Daly

, 823 F.2d 871, 872 (5th Cir. 1987) (findings and

conclusions upon which the district court’s rulings are based are

required when denying section 2255 motions). COA is therefore

GRANTED, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the

district court for the purpose of making the necessary findings on

the controlling issue. If the district court finds that counsel

agreed, after sentencing, to file a direct appeal, it has authority

to grant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief if such relief is appropriate. If

the district court finds otherwise, the case should be returned to

this court for full briefing.

COA is DENIED on the issues whether Norris’s term of

supervised release exceeded the statutory maximum and whether his

sentence was excessive pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey

, 530 U.S.O R D E R

No. 01-50779

- 3 -

466 (2000). Norris’s motion to substitute counsel is also DENIED.

C OA GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART; SUBSTITUTION O F

COUNSEL DENIED; JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 12 (a)



TXU EUROPE LIMITED
(formerly TXU Eastern Holdings Ltd)
(Successor Company)
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
((Pounds) million, except ratios)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     Period From
                                                     Year Ended                   Formation Through
                                                   December 31, 1999              December 31, 1998
<S>                                                <C>                            <C>

EARNINGS
     Net income                                             138                            77
     Add:  Minority income                                   18                            11
           Income tax expense                               111                            67
           Fixed charges (see detail below)                 351                           281
     Less: Interest capitalized                               -                            (4)
                                                   -----------------              -----------------
     Total earnings                                         618                           432
                                                   -----------------              -----------------

FIXED CHARGES:
     Interest expense                                       347                           269
     Add:  Interest capitalized                               -                             4
           Rentals representative of the
             interest factor                                  4                             8
                                                   -----------------              -----------------
     Total fixed charges                                    351                           281
                                                   -----------------              -----------------

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                          1.8                           1.5
                                                   =================              =================
</TABLE>
## NO. 12

- 22

- 00281

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

RAYMOND GARRETT STRBAN,

AN INCAPACITATED ADULT §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OP INION PER CURIAM

T hi s appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply wit h t h e Texas R ules of App ellate

Procedure

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.
Shawna Benge filed a notice of appeal on October 20 , 2022

. P ursuant to Rule 32.1, h er

docke ting statement w as du e to have been filed at the time appeal was pe rfect ed

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 32.1. That same day

, this C ourt requ est ed that A ppellant file a dock etin g statement
within ten days if s he had not already done so. Appellant did not file a docketing statement as

reques ted

. On November 2

, the Clerk of t his C ourt issued a noti ce advi sing Appellant that h er docketing statem ent was past due. The notice pr ovided th at unless the docketing statement was

filed on or befo re November 14 , the appeal would be presented fo r dismissal in accordance with
Texas Rule of App ellate Proce dure 42 .3. Appellant did not file the required docke ting statement

o r otherwise respond to this Court ’ s notice.
Accordingly, b ecause Appellant failed, after notice, to comply wit h Rule 32.1, the appe al

is dismissed

. 1 See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (a fter giv ing ten da ys ’ notice

, appe llate court may

dismiss ap peal because app ellant failed to comp ly wit h a requiremen t o f the appellate rules, a

1 We also note that Appellant ’ s notice of appeal fails to contain the information specifically required by Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 9.5 and Section 51

. 017 (a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 (service) ; see also T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court repo rter responsible for preparing reporter ’ s record).court order, or a notice from the clerk req uiring a respon se or other action within a speci fied

time )

. Opinion delivered November 17 , 2022

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C

. J., Hoyle, J., and Ne eley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 1 7 , 2022

NO. 12

- 22

- 00281

- CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RAYMOND GARRETT STRBAN, AN INCA PACITATED ADULT

Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 017

- 17

- G )

THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate re co rd, and the same
being consider ed, it is the opinion of this Court th at the ap peal should be dis missed

. It is t he refore ORDERED, ADJUDG ED a nd DECREED by this Cou rt t hat
this appeal be, and the same is , he reby dism issed ; and that this decision be certifie d to t he court

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Ho yle, J. and Neeley, J
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3425 

To amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act to provide 

a notice requirement regarding offshoring. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2012 

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act to provide a notice requirement regarding 

offshoring. 

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 ‘‘Offshoring Notification 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION. 

7 Section 2(a) of the Worker Adjustment and Retrain8 ing Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3425 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and 

2 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(9) the term ‘United States’ includes each of 

5 the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Republic 

6 of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Mi7 cronesia, and the Republic of Palau, and each terri8 tory or possession of the United States.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. NOTICE. 

10 Section 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining 

11 Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2102(a)) is amended— 

12 (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and 

13 (d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and 

14 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol15 lowing: 

16 ‘‘(b) OFFSHORING INFORMATION.—The notice shall 

17 contain information stating— 

18 ‘‘(1) whether the employer plans to continue 

19 producing the good or providing the service that the 

20 affected employees have been producing or pro21 viding; and 

22 ‘‘(2) if so, whether the production or provision 

23 will be performed for the employer, by employees or 

24 contractors outside the United States.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
John G. WERNER a/k/a John Werner and Lucy Werner, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Camellia Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1597

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NextMart, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Daniel Sobolewski, Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|By: | /s/ Daniel Sobolewski                                 | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Daniel Sobolewski                                     | 
|    | Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer | 
|    | (Principal Executive Officer)                         | 
|    | January 10, 2019                                      | 





A signed original of this certification
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Richard A. DOUCETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1309

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-10606]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         116,512
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               266,512
<PP&E>                                         2,361,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                 378,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,249,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,391,108
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,148
<OTHER-SE>                                     855,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,249,692
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,673,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,032,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             19,202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,725,072)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,725,072)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.49)



</TABLE>