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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(189)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2007)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(229)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(16)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - (-)documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - arizona(2)
              - california(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - wisconsin(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(16)
              - 2023(5)
              - 2022(2)

staff profileKaj Williams, Ph.D.

staff profileSarah Y. Murphy, Ph.D.

staff profileJustin R. Nichols, Ph.D.

staff profileBryan A. Killingsworth, Ph.D.

staff profileRyan McCammon

staff profileRichard L Reynolds

staff profileBrian T. Lamb, Ph.D.

MOUs        March 22, 2016        MOU - Integrated and Adaptive Water Resources Management

staff profilePatrick Wurster

staff profileJay Alder

staff profileJohn Warner, PhD

staff profileMartha A Scholl

staff profileTimothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

staff profileJason A. Addison, Ph.D.

staff profileMarith Reheis

staff profileAmanda Garcia

staff profileThomas G Huntington, Ph.D.

staff profileAaron M. Jubb, Ph.D.

staff profileRoger Patrick Denlinger, Ph.D.

staff profileSydney S Foks

staff profileKimberly Casey, Ph.D.

staff profileBarry P Baldigo

staff profileKarl B Haase, Ph.D.

staff profileDavid P Krabbenhoft
Exhibit 10.16



Sunoco Partners LLC

Independent Director Compensation Summary Sheet

for 2007



Directors who are employees of Sunoco, Inc., Sunoco Partners LLC, or their
respective affiliates receive no additional compensation for service on the general partners board of directors or any committees of the board. The table below summarizes the 2007 compensation program for independent directors of Sunoco
Partners LLC.



2007 INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY



|                                         |  |                   |  |                   |  |                           
|---------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | ----------------- |  | --------------------------
|Component                                |  | Amount ($)        |  | Medium of Payment |  | Timing of Payment         
|                                         |  |                   | 
|Annual Retainer                          |  | 21,000 per year   |  | Restricted Units  |  | $5,250 credited quarterly1
|                                         |  |                   | 
|                                         |  | 21,000 per year   |  | Cash              |  | $5,250 paid quarterly     
|                                         |  |                   | 
|Board Meeting Fee                        |  | 1,500 per meeting |  | Cash              |  | Paid quarterly            
|                                         |  |                   | 
|Committee Meeting Fee                    |  | 1,000 per meeting |  | Cash              |  | Paid quarterly            
|                                         |  |                   | 
|Compensation Committee Chair Retainer    |  | 3,500 per year    |  | Cash              |  | $   875 paid quarterly    
|                                         |  |                   | 
|Audit/Conflicts Committee Chair Retainer |  | 8,000 per year    |  | Cash              |  | $2,000 paid quarterly     



NOTE TO TABLE:



| | 1. | The fair market value of each quarterly payment of restricted units is calculated as of the payment date. The portion of the annual retainer paid in the form of restricted units is
required to be deferred, and is credited to each independent directors account in the Sunoco Partners LLC Directors Deferred Compensation Plan.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In addition to the foregoing, each independent director is reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses in connection with
attending meetings of the board of directors or committees.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

RE: Manuel Lois Rodriguez Case Number 21-10749-RAM 

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION & RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this

deficiency is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE

RECEIVED BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE

CONFIRMATION HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note: documents that were not timely

filed/received by the trustee may not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this

case. Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee

reserves the right to raise additional objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and

reviewed for possible issues raised and additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the

Trustee. The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. 

The Court may dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for June 20, 2021 hearing. (Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to

"re-sending" documents) REVIEWED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY June 1, 2021

Bar Date: 4/8, LF 76 not filed

3AP served on 6/1

If Counsel for the Debtor(s) appears at confirmation, confirms service, and agrees on the record: 

DISMISS unless resolved on or before 5pm on Thursday July 22 Pending since 5/11 a) copy/explain check

#23161 $3,000.00, 

***********amended plans must use new plan form (6/4/21)****************************************

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

Case 21-10749-RAM Doc 48 Filed 07/08/21 Page 1 of 1
|EXHIBIT 10.1


NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION SUMMARY SHEET


Summary Sheet
Compensation For
Independent Non-Executive Directors of NDS Group plc


Summary of cash
compensation amounts:



1. Annual fee
      
               
              
              
          $75,000
2. Audit Committee Membership            
                
$15,000
3. Audit Committee Chairmanship           
                $10,000
4. Compensation Committee Membership            
    $2,500
5. Compensation Committee Chairmanship        
      $1,000

Other compensation:


The independent non-executive
directors of NDS Group plc are eligible to participate in the NDS 1999 Executive Share
Option Scheme.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting Documentation: IBMDate Staff Contact Information Name of Organization Summary of Discussion WrittenCommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit toDocket?Date sent toEPA- CCDJune 2, 2010 Kirsten Cappel(202) 343-9556cappel.kirsten@epa.gov• Outside participantsidentified below.• EPA Climate ChangeDivision and EPAcontractors: KirstenCappel, EPA; ScottBartos, EPA; DebbieOttinger, EPA; DebHarris, ICFInternational; ShepBurton, ICFInternational.Participants presented potential workon an uncertainty analysis for emissionestimation methods, and discussed theEPA uncertainty analysis presented inthe March 22, 2010 ElectronicsManufacture TSD.IBM submittedcomments tothe docket.Outside Participants:Michele Bolz, IBM, mmbolz@us.ibm.comJay Dietrich, IBM, jdietric@us.ibm.comStephanie Smallwood, IBM, swsmallw@us.ibm.comDave Speed, IBM, speed@us.ibm.com
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Asteroids

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_publications(69)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(16)
              - multimedia_image-141771(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(4)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(4)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - (-)news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Center News        April 9, 2023        The paper is out: Did you know about cascading hazards from asteroid impacts?

Center News        June 28, 2022        Asteroid Day: How do you prepare for an asteroid impact?

Featured Films and Shorts        November 26, 2018        Image of the Week - Antarctica’s Blue Ice
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Weather radar data correlate to hail-induced mortality in grassland birds      

      March 29, 2017    

Small-bodied terrestrial animals such as songbirds (Order Passeriformes) are especially vulnerable to hail-induced mortality; yet, hail events are challenging to predict, and they often occur in locations where populations are not being studied. Focusing on nesting grassland songbirds, we demonstrate a novel approach to estimate hail-induced mortality. We quantify the relationship between the probability of nests destroyed by hail and measured Level-III Next Generation Radar (NEXRAD) data, including atmospheric base reflectivity, maximum estimated size of hail and maximum estimated azimuthal wind shear. On 22 June 2014, a hailstorm in northern Colorado destroyed 102 out of 203 known nests within our research site. Lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) nests comprised most of the sample (n = 186). Destroyed nests were more likely to be found in areas of higher storm intensity, and distributions of NEXRAD variables differed between failed and surviving nests. For 133 ground nests where nest-site vegetation was measured, we examined the ameliorative influence of woody vegetation, nest cover and vegetation density by comparing results for 13 different logistic regression models incorporating the independent and additive effects of weather and vegetation variables. The most parsimonious model used only the interactive effect of hail size and wind shear to predict the probability of nest survival, and the data provided no support for any of the models without this predictor. We conclude that vegetation structure may not mitigate mortality from severe hailstorms and that weather radar products can be used remotely to estimate potential for hail mortality of nesting grassland birds. These insights will improve the efficacy of grassland bird population models under predicted climate change scenarios.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Contact

####               Fort Collins Science Center          

2150 Centre AvenueBldg CFort Collins, CO80526United States

970-226-9100

970-226-9230
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

DouglasC. Wride, President and Chief Financial Officer of Websense, Inc., herebycertifies pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350)that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.               The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Websense, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30,2007 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

2.               The informationcontained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc. for theperiod covered by the Quarterly Report.
| Dated: August 8, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/ DOUGLAS C. WRIDE                  |   |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                  |   |   |   | Douglas C. Wride                      |
|                  |   |   |   | President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

*A signed original ofthis written statement has been provided to Websense, Inc. and will be retainedby Websense, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.  This writtenstatement accompanies the Quarterly Report to which it relates, is not deemedfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, or the Exchange Act, irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.

----
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 170 (Friday, September 1, 2006)]
[Corrections]
[Page 52211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: Z6-13946]



[[Page 52211]]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 4

RIN 3038-AC35


Advertising by Commodity Pool Operators, Commodity Trading 
Advisors, and the Principals Thereof

Correction

    In proposed rule document E6-13946 beginning on page 49387 in the 
issue of Wednesday, August 23, 2006, make the following correction:
    On page 49388, in the first column, in footnote 3, in the first 
line, ``4.31-4.26'' should read ``4.31-4.36''.

[FR Doc. Z6-13946 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Kristen Leigh FRASER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2158

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Frank E. POLO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Merlin HERNANDEZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: Z9-20788]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60559; File No. SR-ISE-2009-27]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, 
LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by 
Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Adopt Rules Implementing the Options Order 
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan

August 21, 2009.

Correction

    In notice document E9-20788 beginning on page 44425 in the issue of 
Friday, August 28, 2009, make the following correction:
    On page 44425, in the second column, the date underneath the 
subject was inadvertently omitted. The date should read as set forth 
above.

[FR Doc. Z9-20788 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY LAMONT BUSH,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. 

(1:01-cr-00611-JFM-1; 1:06-cv-01631-AMD)

Submitted: January 19, 2011 Decided: February 1, 2011

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Lamont Bush, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Lamont Bush seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, in which he 

sought reopening of the appeal period in order that he might 

appeal the district court’s September 24, 2007 order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Bush has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the 
3

motion for appointment of counsel, 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
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37114

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SEAN ANDREW,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 535

Filed: June 29, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem

County. Hon. Juneal C. Kerrick, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of five years, for aggravated battery, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Sean Andrew pled guilty to aggravated battery. I.C. § 18-907. In exchange for his guilty 

plea, the state dismissed an allegation that Andrew was a persistent violator. The district court 

sentenced Andrew to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of 

five years, to run consecutive to an unrelated sentence. Andrew appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Andrew’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Hershell JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1111

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.