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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: GIS

Filters

              - science_education(6)
              - science_faqs(12)
              - science_science(170)
              - products_data(188)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(635)
              - (-)products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(18)
              - multimedia_audio(23)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(23)
              - multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(63)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(17)
              - multimedia_image-141772(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(17)
              - multimedia_image-141776(24)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(160)
              - multimedia_video-149194(67)
              - multimedia_video-149195(13)
              - multimedia_video-149196(3)
              - multimedia_video-149197(52)
              - documents_file(17)
              - documents_file-149208(1)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149214(2)
              - documents_file-149215(2)
              - documents_file-149216(5)
              - documents_file-149220(5)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149249(9)
              - news_news-149250(3)
              - news_other_news(21)
              - connect_staff_profiles(234)
              - other_basic-42(36)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)
              - montana(1)

## By Year

Software Release        January 11, 2022        GIS Clipping and Summarization Toolbox

Software Release        March 23, 2012        SmartRiver GIS

Software Release        November 13, 2020        Python GIS Flood Tool (pygft)

Software Release        January 16, 2024        Software for Bayesian Mapping of Regionally Grouped, Sparse, Univariate Earth Science Data (Program BMRGSU)

Software Release        January 30, 2018        Montana StreamStats: a water-resources web application

Software Release        September 21, 2023        Planetary Geologic Mapping Python Toolbox for ArcGIS

Software Release        September 1, 2020        Social Values for Ecosystem Services

Software Release        March 11, 2016        Modeling and Software

Software Release        April 27, 2023        Software for SIR 'Effect of Data Pooling on Predictions From the Three-Part Method for Quantitative Mineral Resource Assessment-An Investigation of a Previous U.S. Geological Survey Assessment'

Software Release        April 28, 2017        USGS StreamStats for Idaho

Software Release        September 7, 2018        Geospatial Route Interface Tool (GRIT)

Software Release        May 13, 2020        Summarize raster layers within overlapping polygons
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      required by Rule 13a-14(b) or**


**Rule
      15d-14(b) and Section 906 of**


**the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      John H. Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




November
                10, 2005
            /s/
                John H. HomierJohn
                H. Homier,President
                and Chief Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.




25
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELYN HOWELL MASSEY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BIOLA UNIVERSITY, INC., a California

Non

- Profit Religious Corporation; DOES, 1 to 10, Inclusive,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 56128

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 09626

- CJC

- JDE

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 7 , 2022 * *

Before: D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN , Circuit Judges.

Evelyn Howell Massey appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing

her discrimination action against Biola University, Inc. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to

* 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

MAR 7 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

state a claim. Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents , 967 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020)

(citation omitted) . We affirm.

Massey failed to state a Title IX claim because her second amended

complaint did not allege discrimination on the basis of sex. See id . (elements of

Title IX claim).

Massey failed to state a Title VI claim because she did not sufficiently allege

either that Biola University engaged in race discrimination or that officials with

power to take corrective measures were deliberately indifferent to known acts of

discrimination. See Yu v. Idaho State Univ.

, 15 F.4th 1236 , 1242 (9th Cir. 2021);

see also United States v. Cty. of Maricopa , 889 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 2018).

Massey failed to state a First Amendment or due process claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 because B iola University did not act under color of state law. See

Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ. , 965 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2020) ( reasoning that

receipt of government funds “is insufficient to convert a private university into a

state actor .” ).

The district co urt properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over Massey’s state law claims after dismissing all of her federal claims. See 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Platt v. Moore

, 15 F.4th 895 , 909 (9th Cir. 2021).

AFFIRMED.
1747.

#### Colquitt *v.*The State.

Accusation of gaining, from city court of Americus — Judge Crisp. February 8, 1909.

Submitted March 30, —

Decided April 15, 1909.

*Howell B.*Simmons, for plaintiff in error.

*Zach. Childers, solicitor,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. An accusation containing two counts charged the defendant with the oifense of gaming by playing and betting for money at games played with cards and games played with dice. The verdict was guilty, without specifying upon which count it was based. *Held,*that the accusation charged but the one oifense of gaming, the two counts varying the methods of its commission, and a general verdict of guilty will be upheld, if either count is supported by the evidence. *Tooke*v. *State,*4 *Ga. App.*495 (61 S. E. 917), and citations.

2. The evidence fully supports the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2020054EN.01006302.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/63

---

Action brought on 9 December 2019 — Alkemie Group v EUIPO — Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)

(Case T-860/19)

(2020/C 54/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mann & Schröder GmbH (Siegelsbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ALKEMIE — Application for registration No 16 417 669

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 in Case R 2231/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Mann & Schröder GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Mann & Schröder GmbH to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule
15d-14(b) and Section 906 of


the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen
K. Gardner, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





May 10,
2010





/s/
      Stephen K. GardnerStephen
      K. GardnerChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 11 , 2022

NO. 03

- 20

- 00571

- CV

AMLI Downtown Austin, L.P. , Appellant

v.

Peli Peli Austin, LLC , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF J U STICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

REVERSED AND RENDERED

– OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 26, 2022. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the portion of the trial court’s judgment ruling in favor of Peli Peli Austin, LLC on it s breach of

lease claim. Therefore, the Court reverses that portion of the trial court’s judgment and renders

judgment that Peli Peli take not h ing. Peli Peli shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in

this Court and in the court below.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

IAP World Services, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. DAKF04-00-C-0002 ) 

W9124B-12-C-0004 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61117 

Dustin P. Monokian, Esq. 

Senior Corporate Counsel 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

Dana J. Chase, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 16 November 2017 

f\.dministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 6111 7, Appeal of IAP World 

Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
**MANAGEMENT’S
      REPORT TO THE UNITHOLDERS**




Management
      is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements. The financial
      statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted
      accounting principles.




Management
      is responsible for maintaining a system of internal controls that provide
      reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded and that relevant and reliable
      financial information is produced in a timely manner. The Audit Committee of
      the
      Board of Directors meets periodically with management and the auditors to
      satisfy itself that management’s responsibilities are properly discharged, to
      review the financial statements and to recommend approval of the financial
      statements to the Board.




External
      auditors, appointed by the unitholders, have examined the financial statements.
      The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has reviewed the financial
      statements with management and the external auditors. The Board of Directors
      has
      approved the financial statements on the recommendation of the Audit
      Committee.




/s/
      Keith
      Conrad




Keith
      Conrad


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


Calgary,
      Canada




**MARCH
      29, 2006**
# C_2021349EN.01003801.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Arnautu v Parliament

(Case T-740/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Plea of illegality - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie Christine Arnautu (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 21 September 2020 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 87 203,46 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and, second, of the corresponding debit note of 22 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Marie-Christine Arnautu to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Marie-Christine Arnautu to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7558
JACK DOUGLAS MAYHEW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SMITH, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA96-1847-DKC) Submitted: March 31, 1998 Decided: May 5, 1998 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jack Douglas Mayhew, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Mayhew v. Smith , CA-96-1847-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 18, 1997). We deny Appellant's motions for assignment of counsel. 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
**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 Annual Report of Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned 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 my knowledge: 

 

| (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. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: December 6, 2006 | By: | */s/ William R. Donaldson* |
|------------------------|-----|----------------------------|

| * * | *-----------------------------------------------* |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|

|   | William R. Donaldson |
|--------|----------------------|

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. and will be retained by Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6291

KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

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

(CA-96-3162-JFM)

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith William DeBlasio, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on October 22, 1996;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on February 20, 1997, which

is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note

a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore 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
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Stewart A. Fisher,Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Accellent Corp.;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and;

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 9, 2005

 
| /s/ Stewart A. Fisher |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|
|                       |   |
| Stewart A. Fisher          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer    |   |

 

----