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

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Social values for ecosystem services (SolVES): A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services-Documentation and user manual, version 1.0      

      September 16, 2010    

In response to the need for incorporating quantified and spatially explicit measures of social values into ecosystem services assessments, the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, in collaboration with Colorado State University, has developed a geographic information system application, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). SolVES can be used to assess, map, and quantify the perceived social values of ecosystem services. SolVES derives a quantitative social values metric, the Value Index, from a combination of spatial and nonspatial responses to public attitude and preference surveys. SolVES also generates landscape metrics, such as average elevation and distance to water, calculated from spatial data layers describing the underlying physical environment. Using kernel density calculations and zonal statistics, SolVES derives and maps the 10-point Value Index and reports landscape metrics associated with each index value for social value types such as aesthetics, biodiversity, and recreation. This can be repeated for various survey subgroups as distinguished by their attitudes and preferences regarding public uses of the forests such as motorized recreation and logging for fuels reduction. The Value Index provides a basis of comparison within and among survey subgroups to consider the effect of social contexts on the valuation of ecosystem services. SolVES includes regression coefficients linking the predicted value (the Value Index) to landscape metrics. These coefficients are used to generate predicted social value maps using value transfer techniques for areas where primary survey data are not available. SolVES was developed, and will continue to be enhanced through future versions, as a public domain tool to enable decision makers and researchers to map the social values of ecosystem services and to facilitate discussions among diverse stakeholders regarding tradeoffs between different ecosystem services in a variety of physical and social contexts.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Darius Semmens

##### Research Physical Scientist

Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center

dsemmens@usgs.gov

303-236-1420

## Related Content

#### Darius Semmens

##### Research Physical Scientist

Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center

dsemmens@usgs.gov

303-236-1420

### Contact

####               Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center          

Denver Federal CenterBuilding 25Denver, CO80225-0046United States

303-236-5345
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




2012 Incentive Compensation Guidelines





	 	•	 	Each year the Compensation Committee of the Board (“the Committee”) will approve the
employees of Group 1 who are eligible for participation in the Corporate Incentive
Compensation Plan (“the Plan”) for the year.






	 	•	 	Incentive compensation levels of the Plan for each individual will be stated as a
percentage of the participating employee’s base compensation in effect when the Plan is
approved by the Committee.






	 	•	 	For Managers and above, incentive compensation levels of the Plan will be based upon both
financial-based and mission-based goals for the Plan year as established by the Committee.






	 	 	 	– Up to 50% of the incentive award will be based on an established financial goal
(EPS target). The EPS target will equate to the Company’s adjusted EPS as disclosed in
its fourth quarter earnings release as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Any effects of stock buy backs will also be excluded from the calculation.






	 	 	 	– Up to 50% of the incentive award will be based on mission-based goals
established at the beginning of each year. The mission-based bonus will only be funded
if the Company achieves a minimum EPS of $3.09.






	 	 	 	– The mission-based and financial-based portions of the bonus can be awarded
independently so that achievement of one is not predicated on the achievement of the
other.






	 	•	 	For Associate Managers and below, the incentive award will be based on attainment of
mission-based goals established during the annual review cycle and performance during the
year as determined by the individual’s manager and department head.






	 	•	 	For Employees hired during a Plan year, the Committee will have complete discretion as to
the extent of participation in the Plan, if any, by the new hire.






	 	•	 	Employees who resign their positions with Group 1 will not be entitled to
participate in the Plan for the year in which the resignation occurs.






	 	•	 	Employees who resign their positions with Group 1 after the end of a Plan year,
but before the actual payment of the incentive compensation amounts will be entitled to
payment for the Plan year for which they were employed.






	 	•	 	Incentive Compensation earned for the Plan year will be paid after completion of the
Company’s audit and announcement of earnings for that year.






	 	•	 	In the event of a material restatement of the Company’s financial statement, the
Committee may, in its discretion, either make additional payment to or seek to recover the
cash amount by which the individual employee’s bonus is affected based on the restated
financial results.






	 	•	 	The Committee has sole authority to administer, modify or change the Plan, including but
not limited to, adjusting actual performance criteria for Plan purposes for extraordinary or
unusual items included in actual operating results, or when the company fails to meet
financial objectives.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1919** 

WARREN K. GLADDEN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; GARY LOCKE, Secretary , Defendants

– Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 01756

- PJM )

Submitted : March 16, 2012 Decided: April 9, 2012

Before DIAZ and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Warren K. Gladden, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Warren K. Gladden appeals the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on Gladden’s claims of employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gladden v. U
. S
. Dep’t of Commerce , No. 8:10

- cv - 01756

- PJM (D. Md. June 30, 2011) . We dis pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.2








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 on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Oilsands
Quest Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended January 31, 2010, the
undersigned Garth Wong, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s
knowledge and belief:





(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.





March
      9, 2010/s/
      Garth WongGarth
      Wong, Chief Financial
Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7858

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WESLEY BERNARD WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CR-01-198-CWH; CA-04-22859-CWH)

Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: April 19, 2006

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wesley Bernard Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham,

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Wesley Bernard Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks a

certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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 Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41197 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN HERRERA-MIJARES, also known as Martin Villa-Diaz, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-290-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Martin Herrera-Mijares appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Herrera-Mijares contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8No. 03-41197 -2- U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Herrera-Mijares acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Reconnaissance of the Pere Marquette River, a cold water river in the central part of Michigan's Southern Peninsula      

      January 1, 1971    

View Plate

View Plate

The cold-water streams of the northern states provide unique recreational values to the American people (wilderness or semi-wilderness atmosphere, fast-water canoeing, and trout fishing) but the expanding recreational needs must be balanced against the growing demand of water for public and industrial supplies, for irrigation, and for the dilution of sewage and other wastes. In order to make intelligent decisions regarding use and management of the water resource for recreation and other demands, an analysis of the hydrologic factors related to recreational values is essential.

The Pere Marquette, an outstanding river for brown and steelhead trout fishing, is also a popular canoe trail. Larger boats, some equipped with motors, are common in the lower reaches where the river is wide and deep. Cabins are abundant on the river near Baldwin but are relatively sparse elsewhere. The broad swampy floodplain that borders most of the river between Walhalla and Ludington apparently offers few favorable cabin sites.

The Pere Marquette is located in the west-central part of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, and flows westward from the headwaters near Chase in Lake County to the mouth at Ludington, in Mason County. The river is south of, and roughly parallel to, U.S. Highway 10 from Chase to Ludington. Access to the river is by roads leading south from U.S. 10 at Nirvana, Idlewild, Baldwin, Branch, Walhalla, Scottville, and many intermediate points.

The recreational value of the river depends on the streamflow characteristics, quality of water, and character of stream channel and bed and banks. The purpose of this report is to describe these characteristics and show how they relate to recreational USGS.

Most of the information presented here was obtained from a field reconnaissance in July and August, 1966, and from basic records of the U.S. Geological Survey's Water Resources Division. The area of field study is limited to the channel, bed, and banks of the Middle Branch and main stem of the Pere Marquette from source to mouth. The study was made in cooperation with the Michigan Geological Survey, Gerald E. Eddy, Chief. Advice and assistance were also obtained from other sections of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Sheet 1 of this atlas presents information on streamflow and quality of water. Sheet 2 describes the physical characteristics of the stream channel, and bed and banks, and shows how these characteristics relate to streamflow, water quality, and recreational use.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - pere marquette river
                  - Michigan

View All **
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
HLFIP HOLDING, INC., DBA SMART COMMUNICATIONS IP HOLDINGS, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

YORK COUNTY, PA, YORK COUNTY PRISON, ADAM OGLE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS YORK COUNTY PRISON WARDEN, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2022

- 1940

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in No. 1:20

- cv

- 00186

- JPW, Judge Jennifer P. Wilson.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S COTT T HOMAS W EINGAERTNER
, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by K ATRINA M. Q UICKER , Quicker Law, LLC, A tlanta, GA.

W ILLIAM M ILLIKEN
, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for defendants

- appellees. Case: 22-1940 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 08/18/2023Also represented by R ICHARD C RUDO
, U MA E VERETT
, R YAN C HARLES R ICHARDSON
, M ICHAEL D. S PECHT

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE
, P ROST
, and C UNNINGHAM
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 18, 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court Case: 22-1940 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 08/18/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 06-0544

IN RE PETITION OF VINCENT JAMESLUPARELL FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA ORDER

Vincent James Luparell haspetitioned for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar of Montana. Luparell was placed on inactive status by the State Bar of Montana pursuant to Rules 3B2, 5, and 13 ofthe Rules for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) on June 30, 2024, as a result ofnoncompliance with CLE requirements. In accordance with Rule 13 ofthe CLE Rules,Luparell hasprovided a letter from the State Bar certifyingthat Luparell has now completed all CLE requirements "through the reporting year that ended March 31, 2024." The Petition indicates Luparell is or has not been: 1) suspended, disbarred, or otherwise ineligible topractice oflaw in anotherjurisdiction and is notcurrently subjectto disciplinary proceedings or pending disciplinary proceedings in another jurisdiction, 2) charged with a criminal offense, 3) accrued delinquent debt or filed for bankruptcy, 4) failedto fulfill the obligations ofa public office orprofessional license, or 5) committed any violations ofthe Rules ofProfessional Conduct while on inactive status. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Vincent James Luparell for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this- day ofSeptember, 2024.

ChiefJustice 09/03/2024

Case Number: PR 06-0544
Christopher T. MYLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1847

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 20-10274-RAM Doc 35 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 20-10274-RAM Doc 35 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 20-10274-RAM Doc 35 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 3
Case 20-21883-SMG    Doc 150-2    Filed 03/09/21    Page 1 of 3

Case 20-21883-SMG    Doc 150-2    Filed 03/09/21    Page 2 of 3

Case 20-21883-SMG    Doc 150-2    Filed 03/09/21    Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 2445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-10116]



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 1997 / 
Corrections

[[Page 2445]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

RIN 0648-XX71
[Docket No. 961114318-6318-01; I.D. 110496A]


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Area; Interim 1997 Harvest Specifications

Correction

    In rule document 96-30046, beginning on page 60044, in the issue of 
Tuesday, November 26, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 60047, at the end of Table 2, under Footnote 5, insert 
``(<SUP>6) Exempt''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 27598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-50524]




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / 
Corrections

[[Page 27598]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. 950411099-5099-01]
RIN 0651-AA52

Amendment to Rules for Extension of Patent Term

Correction

    In rule document 95-11787 beginning on page 25615 in the issue of 
Friday, May 12, 1995, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 25616, in the second column, in the third full 
paragraph, in the fourth line, insert ``term'' after ``patent''.
    2. On the same page, in the same column, in the fourth paragraph, 
in the fifth line, remove ``further''.
    3. On page 25617, in the second column, in the first full 
paragraph, in the first sentence, ``Section 1750'' should read 
``Section 1760''.
    4. On the same page, in the third column, under the heading Other 
Considerations, in the first full paragraph, in the last line, 
``35091'' should read ``3501''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 3948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-50119]



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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Board of Contract Appeals

48 CFR Part 6101


Rules of Procedure of the General Services Administration Board 
of Contract Appeals

Correction

    In Proposed Rule document 94-29694 beginning on page 61861 in the 
issue of Friday, December 2, 1994 make the following corrections:
    On page 61862, in the first column, in the first complete 
paragraph:
    (a) In the second line ``$100,000'' should read``$10,000''.
    (b) In the fifth line ``$10,000'' should read ``$100,000''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-12751-BKC-MAM

PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER 13

IN RE:

RON VIGDOR

XXX-XX-4069

_____________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON NOTICE OF HEARING

DEBTOR

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to practice in this 

Court as set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A) and that a true and correct copy of the Notice Of Hearing noted 

above was served, via U.S. first class mail, certified mail and/or CM/ECF, upon the parties listed on the 

attached service list this 20th day of January, 2021.

/s/ Robin R. Weiner

ROBIN R. WEINER, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 559007

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33355-9007

TELEPHONE: 954-382-2001

FLORIDA BAR NO.: 861154

_____________________________________

Case 20-12751-MAM Doc 53 Filed 01/20/21 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CASE NO.: 20-12751-BKC-MAM

SERVICE LIST

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

DEBTOR

RON VIGDOR

5204 LANE PARKE COURT

MOUNTAIN BROOK, AL 35223

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR

CHRISTIAN J. OLSON, ESQUIRE

C/O NOWACK & OLSON, PLLC

8551 SUNRISE BLVD, SUITE 208

PLANTATION, FL 33322

CREDITOR(S)

ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN

US ATTY S.D. FL

500 E. BROWARD BLVD.

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33394

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

ATTN: BENJAMIN G. GREENBERG, US ATTORNEY

99 NE 4TH STREET

MIAMI, FL 33132

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

C/O BETSY DEVOS, EDUCATION SECRETARY

400 MARYLAND AVE., SW

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

C/O FEDLOAN SERVICING

POB 790234

ST. LOUIS, MO 63179

US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

C/O FEDLOAN SERVICING

POB 69184

HARRISBURG, PA 17106

WILLIAM BARR, US ATTORNEY GENERAL

US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20530

Case 20-12751-MAM Doc 53 Filed 01/20/21 Page 2 of 2