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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration      

      September 11, 2018    

Ecological restoration has traditionally been evaluated by monitoring the recovery of ecosystem conditions, such as species diversity and abundance, physical form, and water quality, whereas monitoring the social benefits of restoration is uncommon. Current monitoring frameworks do not track who benefits from restoration or by how much. In this study, we investigate how ecological restoration could be monitored to provide indications of progress in terms of social conditions. We provide suggestions for measuring several categories of benefit indicators, including access, beneficiaries, and quality of benefit, using information compiled from natural and social science literature. We also demonstrate how to evaluate ecological and social benefit indicators over time at a site or landscape scale using multi-criteria analysis. We use flood protection and recreation as example benefits to monitor.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### James E Lyons, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Eastern Ecological Science Center

jelyons@usgs.gov

301-497-5567

## Related Content

#### James E Lyons, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Eastern Ecological Science Center

jelyons@usgs.gov

301-497-5567

### Contact

####               Eastern Ecological Science Center at the Leetown Research Laboratory          

11649 Leetown RoadKearneysville, WV25430United States
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 26 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JESS D. HUNT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. GEORGE MILLER, in his capacity as director of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-6216 (D.C. No. CIV-95-1656-A) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Jud ges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of sum mary judgment in defendant’s favor on his claims of age discriminati on and retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (ADEA). The district courtconcluded that of the eight promotions plaintiff claims he was denied on the ba sis of his age, six were time barred due to plaintiff’s failure to file an EEOC c laim as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). One of the two remaining promotions was denied because plaintiff was not qualified. The final promotion, which formed t he basis of the retaliation claim, was denied because plaintiff had failed to d emonstrate the requisite causal connection between his EEOC claim and the adverse e mployment action. See Corneveaux v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Group. , 76 F.3d 1498, 1507 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating elements of prima facie case of retaliatio n under ADEA). We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, ap plying the same standard as the district court. See Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc., v. First Affiliated Secs., Inc. , 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). “Summary j udgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over amaterial fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Russillo v. Scarborough , 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir. 1991). We have carefull y reviewed the materials submitted by the parties. We affirm the district c ourt’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant for substantially th e same reasons stated in the district court’s thorough order filed May 30, 1996.-3-

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge
IC 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3642 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2012 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To clarify the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

S 3642 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Theft of Trade Secrets 

3 Clarification Act of 2012’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

5 Section 1832(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by strik7 ing ‘‘or included in a product that is produced for or 

8 placed in’’ and inserting ‘‘a product or service used in or 

9 intended for use in’’. 

Passed the Senate November 27, 2012. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
EXHIBIT 146 

Confidential Exhibit To Be Submitted At Trial Pursuant To Order Granting In Part And 

Denying In Part Jeffrey Siskind’s Emergency Motion For Protective Order Prohibiting 

The Release Of Confidential Client Financial Information [ECF No. 121] [ECF No. 

180] Bankruptcy Court For The Southern District Of Florida – Case No. 18-16248 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 477-19 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 1
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**FORM 10-Q/A**

 

[X]     QUARTERLYREPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

**For the quarterly period ended June30, 2015**

 

[  ]    TRANSITIONREPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

For the transition period from ________________to _______________

 

**000-27763**

(Commission file number)

 

**SITESTAR CORPORATION**

(Exact name of small business issuer asspecified in its charter)
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 of ALR Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Sidney Chan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 14th day of April, 2004.



| | /s/ Sidney Chan 
Sidney Chan
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





















---
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-2689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellant,

v.

GREGORY F. TZANNOS, a/k/a Gregory F. Tzannas,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on August 22, 2006, is

amended as follows:

On page 15, line 23: underline "Franks"

On page 21, line 5: remove the comma in "Norton,"
**EXHIBIT32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theAnnual Report of NextMart, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscalyear ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruno Wu Zheng, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted 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 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/ Bruno Wu Zheng                                   |   |
| Bruno Wu Zheng, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: July 13, 2007                                  |

 

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24I0101. JUSTIN ALAN JONES v. THE STATE.

A Carroll County grand jury indicted Justin Jones for kidnapping and several

other crimes. On August 30, 2023, the trial court entered an order in which, among

other things, the court denied Jones’s motion to dismiss for alleged speedy trial

violations, denied Jones’s request to represent himself, appointed the Carroll County

Public Defender’s Office to represent him, and concluded that Jones was not entitled

to hybrid representation in this case. See Johnson v. State, 315 Ga. 876, 890-891 (4)

(885 SE2d 725) (2023). On October 19, 2023, Jones filed, in the Supreme Court of

Georgia, a pro se “Inmate Form for Civil Actions Filed in the Supreme Court of

Georgia,” seeking to challenge the denial of his motion to dismiss for alleged speedy

trial violations. The Supreme Court construed the filing as an application for

interlocutory appeal and transferred it to this Court. We lack jurisdiction.

By statute, a party seeking appellate review by way of an application for

interlocutory appeal must obtain a certificate of immediate reviewfrom the trial court

within ten days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); see

Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991)

(“[A] party seeking appellate review from an interlocutory order must follow the

interlocutory-application subsection, OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), seek a certificate of

immediate review from the trial court, and comply with the time limitations

therein.”). Absent a certificate of immediate review, we lack jurisdiction over this

application for interlocutory appeal. See Scruggs, 261 Ga. at 589 (1).

January 09, 2024
To the extent that Jones’s filing may be construed as seeking discretionary

reviewunder OCGA § 5-6-35 (b), it was untimely filed 50 days after entry of the order

he seeks to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d) (an application for discretionary review

must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or trial court order sought to be

appealed); Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989) (the

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal not made in compliance therewith).

For the above reasons, this application is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Given Jones’sfailure to comply with the interlocutory or discretionary appeal

requirements, we express no opinion on whether the pro se filing at issue here is

otherwise ineffective in light of the trial court’s ruling that he is not entitled to hybrid

representation in this case. See Johnson, 315 Ga. at 890-891 (4).

01/09/2024
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 474-17 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 474-17 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 474-17 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 12(a)

TXU EUROPE LIMITED
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES,
(Pounds) million, except ratios)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Year Ended December 31,
                                                          ----------------------------------------------
                                                                  2001               2000           1999
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>              <C>
EARNINGS
      Income from Continuing Operations                            (14)                41              32
      Add:    Minority income                                       11                  2               1
              Income tax expense (benefit)                         (84)                29              55
              Fixed charges (see detail below)                     351                331             294
      Less:   Interest capitalized                                  (7)                (6)              0
                                                          --------------     ------------     -----------
      Total earnings                                               257                397             382
                                                          --------------     ------------     -----------

FIXED CHARGES:
      Interest expense                                             336                317             291
      Add:    Interest capitalized                                   7                  6               0
              Rentals representative of the interest
                 factor                                              8                  8               3
                                                          --------------     ------------     -----------
      Total fixed charges                                          351                331             294
                                                          --------------     ------------     -----------

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                 0.7(a)             1.2             1.3
                                                          ==============     ============     ===========
</TABLE>

(a) For the year ended December 31, 2001, fixed charges exceeded earnings by
(Pounds)94 million.
CERTIFICATION

     I, Allen Jones, certify that:

  1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of USA
     Telcom Internationale;

  2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
     any untrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a
     material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
     of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
     not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     quarterly report; and

  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
     financial information included in this quarterly report,
     fairly present in all material respects the financial
     position, results of operations, and cash flows of the issuer
     as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
     report.

  4.The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
     responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
     controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
     14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
       that material information relating to the registrant, including its
       consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
       those entities, particularly during the period in which this
       quarterly report is being prepared;
     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
       controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
       filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
       effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
       our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

  5.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
     disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
     registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
     board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
     functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
       internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
       ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
       have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
       weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
       or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
       internal controls; and

  6.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
     indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
     that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
     to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
     corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
     material weaknesses.


Date:  December 2, 2003

/s/ Allen Jones
-----------------
     President
     Chief Executive Officer
     Chief Financial Officer
Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.28 
 Description of Independent Director Compensation 
 For 2011, the
compensation for the independent directors of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), which was awarded on February 1, 2012, consisted of the following: 
  

	 	•	 	 a $75,000 annual retainer in the form of 662 vested restricted stock units (RSUs) to each independent director, other than Debora L. Spar, who became a
director in June 2011 and received a prorated retainer of $43,750 in the form of 386 vested RSUs, and M. Michele Burns, who became a director in October 2011 and received a prorated retainer of $18,750 in the form of 166 vested RSUs;



  

	 	•	 	 a $25,000 committee chair fee in the form of 221 vested RSUs to each of John H. Bryan, Stephen Friedman, James A. Johnson and James J. Schiro; and



  

	 	•	 	 an annual grant of 2,500 vested RSUs to each independent director, other than Dr. Spar, who became a director in June 2011 and received a prorated
annual grant of 1,459 vested RSUs, and Ms. Burns, who became a director in October 2011 and received a prorated annual grant of 625 vested RSUs. 


 In addition, H. Lee Scott, Jr., who retired as a director in May 2011, received a prorated retainer of $31,250 and a prorated annual grant of $112,817. Because he was no longer on the Group Inc.
board of directors (the Board), the Board determined to pay his prorated compensation in cash rather than equity. 
 RSUs
granted to independent directors for 2011 services are fully vested and provide for delivery of the underlying shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share (Common Stock), of Group Inc. on the first eligible trading day in the third quarter of
the year following the year of the director’s retirement from the Board. 
 The Board, upon the recommendation of Group
Inc.’s Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, has a stock ownership policy that requires each independent director to beneficially own at least 5,000 shares of Common Stock or fully vested RSUs within two years of becoming a director.

 Independent directors of Group Inc. are permitted to participate in Group Inc.’s employee matching gift program on the
same terms as non-participating managing director employees generally. Under the program for 2011, Group Inc. matched gifts of up to $20,000 in the aggregate per participating individual. 

Independent directors receive no compensation other than directors’ fees.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-09-013]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

 United States International Trade Commission.

# Time and Date:

 May 8, 2009 at 11 a.m.

# Place:

 Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# Status:

 Open to the public.

# Matters To Be Considered:

1. Agenda for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1151-1152 (Final)  (Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before May 18, 2009.)

5. Inv. No. 731-TA-1013 (Review) (Saccharin from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before May 21, 2009.)

6. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

Issued: April 24, 2009.

By order of the Commission.

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. E9-9754 Filed 4-24-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
II 

Calendar No. 560 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3664 

To provide for debt limit extensions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2012 

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

DECEMBER 10, 2012 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To provide for debt limit extensions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION. 

4 Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘as provided by law 

6 through the congressional budget process described in 

7 Rule XLIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

8 or as provided by section 3101A or otherwise.’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘as provided— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

S 3664 PCS

1 ‘‘(1) by law through the congressional budget 

2 process described in Rule XLIX of the Rules of the 

3 House of Representatives or as provided by section 

4 3101A or otherwise, or 

5 ‘‘(2) by Executive order of the President. 

6 An Executive order issued pursuant to paragraph (2) shall 

7 be considered as a major rule for purposes of chapter 8 

8 of title 5, United States Code.’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Calendar No. 560 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3664 

A BILL 

To provide for debt limit extensions. 

DECEMBER 10, 2012 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with