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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Crops

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_science(96)
              - products_data(87)
              - products_maps(20)
              - products_publications(704)
              - products_software(3)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_audio(64)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(59)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(5)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(132)
              - multimedia_image-141771(119)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(4)
              - multimedia_image-141776(4)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(107)
              - multimedia_video-149194(40)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(5)
              - multimedia_video-149198(7)
              - documents_file(12)
              - (-)documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149216(3)
              - documents_file-149224(8)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149249(3)
              - news_news-149250(3)
              - news_other_news(7)
              - connect_staff_profiles(5)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

## By Year

Technical Memos        November 1, 1999        TM99-08 Method Change for the Determination of Phytoplankton Biomass
Michael Alexander LYNCH, DOC # D65181, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3271

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jason R. BENEFIELD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff of Polk County, Florida and the State of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3488

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Trace JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-250

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KUANG-BAO OU-YOUNG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KAMALA D. HARRIS; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15001 

D.C. No. 5:20-cv-09097-VKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: WATFORD, BENNETT, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Kuang-Bao Ou-Young appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the 

application of a pre-filing order. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 13 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 21-15001 

1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Ou-Young’s 

complaint and dismissing his action, because the claims alleged were within the 

scope of the district court’s pre-filing restrictions imposed on him as a vexatious 

litigant. See West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that 

an order refusing to authorize the filing of a complaint was a “proper exercise of 

the district court’s authority to effectuate compliance with its earlier order”). 

We reject as without merit Ou-Young’s contentions that the dismissal of his 

action was in violation of his constitutional rights or premature, or that the district 

court “falsified dismissal.” 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider Ou-Young’s renewed motion for summary reversal 

(Docket Entry No. 28). In Docket Entry No. 25, this court denied Ou-Young’s 

renewed motions for summary reversal and ordered that no motions for 

reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or 

entertained.

AFFIRMED.
Kima Shawn JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1572

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 23, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - (-)science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - hawaii(3)

## By Year

faq        July 7, 2017        What is declination?

faq        June 30, 2017        Why are amphibian populations declining?

faq        June 30, 2017        What is the United States doing about amphibian deformity and decline issues?

B-roll        June 7, 2023        Timelapse of Halema‘uma‘u eruption, Kīlauea volcano — June 7-9, 2023

faq        July 7, 2017        Why measure the magnetic field at the Earth's surface? Wouldn't satellites be better suited for space-weather studies?

faq        July 31, 2017        What do the different north arrows on a USGS topographic map mean?

B-roll        March 10, 2021        Kīlauea summit — webcam time-lapse

B-roll        January 5, 2023        KWcam at Kīlauea's summit captures eruption within Halemaʻumaʻu crater

B-roll        May 9, 2023        Bird Collisions: Current Science and Future Opportunities

B-roll        April 15, 2014        Polar Bear - POV Cams (Spring 2014)

B-roll        August 18, 2019        Time-lapse video of bluff erosion on Barter Island, Alaska
David S. BROXTERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1479

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
February ii, 2013 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Stratospheric Protection Division 

Attention: Melissa Fiffer 

1310 L Street NW, ioth Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Ms. Fiffer: 

Request for Further Information for SNAP Submission for 

Request from Agency: 

i. Clarification of blend compositions. The new substitute is proposed for use neat and in 

blends of as little as 

The actual blend formulation has the potential to vary widely. Please specify, or at least 

narrow, the chemicals and percentage of the chemicals to be used in blends for the solvent 

cleaning (metal, electronic, and precision cleaning), aerosol (solvent), and adhesives, 

coatings, and ink uses. 
i~'14:' 8 ? 
Request from Agency: 

2. Conversion of exposure estimates. In your PowerPoint presentation, you provided estimates 

of human exposure to the proposed substitute in units of mg/kg/day. Please confirm or 

correct the conversion from mg/kg/day to ppm. 

We estimated these values based on the following equation: 

Exposure Estimate x 

72 / io x 24•45 

In addition, please clarify whether these exposure estimates are based on the neat substance 

only or on a 

Request from Agency: 

3. Additional toxicity information. Do you have any 28-day or 9o-day inhalation toxicity 

studies completed for this compound that you could provide? If you have not performed such 

a study, we request that you perform at least a 28-day inhalation toxicity study. If you 

conduct additional testing, we recommend that the testing include a functional observation 

battery on neurological effects. As inhalation is the most probable route of exposure, a repeat 

dose inhalation study would be helpful in fully assessing health effects and reducing 

uncertainty. 

Request from Agency: 

4. Confidential business information (CBI) claims. Claims of CBI, if you wish to claim any of 

the information above as CBI. 

Page ; 
Response from submitter: 

The submitter does wish to claim certain information as CBI. The CBI information has been clearly 

marked. Confidential and public copies are enclosed. 

Attachment 1 

Via Federal Express 

Page } 
r 

~--~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

V 

(LS 

~ 

El
GATEWAY RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS, P.A., et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. RH FUND XIV, LLC, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3447

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - (-)products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - (-)news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - california(7)
              - oregon(1)
              - utah(1)

## By Year

Science Snippet        May 6, 2024        Trout, beavers, drought, and a “precious” frog

Science Snippet        April 12, 2022        History of Lake Powell Written in Sediment

Science Snippet        December 29, 2022        Historic changes in water quality or lake surface elevation and their impact on endangered adult suckers in the Klamath Basin

Data Access        December 7, 2018        Areas of Land Subsidence in California

Science Snippet        July 16, 2020        USGS Scientists are Busy as a Bee

Interactive Map        July 16, 2021        The Mojave River:  Lifeblood of the Desert

Data Access        December 18, 2018        San Antonio Creek Valley Hydrologic Monitoring

Data Access        December 19, 2018        Drought & Groundwater in California

Data Access        November 7, 2018        Mojave Groundwater Data

Data Access        December 10, 2018        Lower Colorado River Hydrologic Monitoring

Data Access        January 31, 2019        Assessment of Groundwater Quality in the Borrego Valley
IN the INTEREST OF A.D.C., a child.

R.W., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-1636

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Betty REEDER v. HARDTNER MEDICAL CENTER

NO. 2018-C-0917

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

Denied.
Termination Agreement



 EXHIBIT 4.108 
 Termination Agreement 
 This Agreement is executed on July 24, 2006 by and among: 
 Party A: Beijing Lahiji Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Party A”) 
 Registered Address: Room 601, Unit C, No.18 of Xi Huan Road (S), Economic-Technological Development Area, Beijing 
 Party B:
Wang Yu Tian (hereinafter referred to as “Party B”) 
 PRC Identity Card Number: 110108195606131211 
 Address: Room 502, Building 24 (M), Yard 8, Yiguang Temple, Haidian District, Beijing, PRC 
 Party C: Beijing Bo Xun Rong Tong Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Party C”) 
 Address: Room 831, Jinmen Plaza III, No. 9 of Yangfangdian Road, Haidian District, Beijing 
 Whereas: 
  

	1.	Party A, Party B and Party C executed an Exclusive Share Purchase Right Contract (hereinafter referred to as the “Exclusive Share Purchase Right Contract”) on June 1,
2006. 

  

	2.	Party A, Party B and Party C wish to terminate the said Exclusive Share Purchase Right Contract upon the satisfaction of certain conditions. 

 Now therefore, the Parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Party A, Party B and Party C agree to terminate the Exclusive Share Purchase Right Contract, which shall automatically become invalid upon the effective date of this agreement.


  

 1 









	2.	On the date when the Exclusive Share Purchase Right Contract becomes invalid, the rights and obligations of Parties under the Exclusive Share Purchase Right Contract shall be
terminated accordingly. 

  

	3.	This Agreement shall take effect on the date when Party B and Sun Wei Jing execute Share Transfer Agreement with the person designated by Party A with respect to all their equity
interest in Party C and register the change of shareholder with the original administration of industry and commerce. 

  

	4.	This Agreement shall be governed by the PRC laws. 

  

	5.	This Agreement is made in three copies, each held by either Party. 

  

 2 








 [Execution Page] 
 Party A: Beijing Lahiji Technology Development Co., Ltd. 
 Authorized Representative:
                                        

 Seal: 
 Party B: Wang Yu Tian 
 Signature: 
 Party C: Beijing Bo Xun Rong Tong Information Technology Co.,
Ltd. 
 Authorized Representative:
                                        

 Seal: 
  

 3
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

d1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139414

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139414 COA: 291746 Ingham CC: 08-000552-FH AL DOUGLAS BULLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 11, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2020185EN.01000101.xml

| 4.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9845 – Davidson Kempner Capital Management/GoldenTree Asset Management/Quorum Health Corporation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 185/01)

On 28 May 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9845. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9845. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 3

- 621 V

(E

- Filed : J une 13, 2014 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

L ATASHA GEORGE

, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Special Master

* Hamilton

- Fieldman

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

D amon L. Beard

, T ownsl ey Law Firm, Lake Charles, LA, for Petitioner

, G ordon E. Shemin

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent

.

DECISION 1 (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Pr ogram, 2 the

undersigned issued a decision on M arch 24, 2014 . On J une 13, 2014, the parties filed a

stipulation concerning attorney s’ fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation

requests a total payment of $ 4 7, 500.00 , representing total attorney s ’ fees and costs.

Pursuant to General Order #9, Petitioner stated that s he has not incurred any reimbursable

costs in pursuit of h e r claim.

1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002,

Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. §

3501 not e (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade

secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) th at

are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly

unw arranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to

the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program a re found at 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).2

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the amount of $ 4 7,500.00

, in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel,

D amon L. Beard , Esq.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court sh all enter judgment

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

. s/ Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5856 

To prohibit the United States Department of Homeland Security from 

purchasing, operating, or maintaining armed unmanned aerial vehicles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To prohibit the United States Department of Homeland Security from purchasing, operating, or maintaining armed 

unmanned aerial vehicles. 

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 ‘‘No Armed Drones for 

5 DHS Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5856 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PURCHASE, USE, OR MAINTE2 NANCE OF ARMED DRONES. 

3 The United States Department of Homeland Security 

4 is prohibited from purchasing, operating, or maintaining 

5 armed unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Scott J. BIZZELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-886

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Shane MEAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-701

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 21, 2018 Rehearing Denied October 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Frederick Dee BUNTIN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1465

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred.
Loubert JULES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-448

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA EXQUISIT E MULTIMEDIA, INC., P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 11-1976 (R WR/JMF ) DOES 1-336, Defendan ts. ORDER In acc ordanc e with the ac company ing Me morandum Opinion, it is, hereby , ORDERED that plaintiff, in writing by Fe bruar y 10, 2012, supplement its showing reg ardingits good fa ith belief that the IP addresse s identified by plaintiff belong

to persons who
are domiciled in the District of Columbia and that the I SPs identified by plaintiff serve the District of Columbia. I t is further, he reby , ORDERED that plaintiff show ca use why venue is prope r unless the de fenda nt resides in the District of Columbia. SO ORDERED.

_____________________________ J OHN M. F ACCI OLA UNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE