alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Great Basin Rangelands Research: Reno, NV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Newsletter
                        Volume 1
                                    Volume 2Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Reno, Nevada Great Basin Rangelands Research ecophysiology







Ecophys Researchheadline bar  EcophysiologyLab  Plantecophysiologyis a biological discipline that studies the adaptation of an organism's physiology to environmental conditions. It is concerned largely with mechanisms and scaling or integration.   Dr. Keirith Snyder Ecophysiologist USDA-ARS-GBRRU 920 Valley Rd. Reno, Nevada 89512 Office: 1-775-525-7780 keirith.snyder@usda.gov  Technicians: Sandra Li


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                       214
<INVENTORY>                                      6,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,497
<PP&E>                                           9,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,160
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,791
<SALES>                                         24,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,702
<CGS>                                           15,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   298
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.89)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Sitarski, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J.—petit larceny.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 99.2

                                  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 accompanying report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
March 31, 2003, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the report), Julie Seaman, hereby certifies that:

3.   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15d of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

4.   The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Julie Seaman
Julie Seaman, Principal Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISANTA HERNANDEZ PARRA, et al.,

Petitioners, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72674 

Agency Nos. A206-910-654 

A206-910-968 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges

Crisanta Hernandez Parra and her granddaughter, natives and citizens of 

Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

 

* 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

OCT 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-72674 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed 

to establish a nexus between past or future harm and a protected ground, including 

membership in a particular social group. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 

1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 

2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant 

must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in 

such group”) (emphasis in original). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of 

removal claims fail. 

Although petitioners reference CAT relief in their statement of issues, they 

do not make any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not 

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: CP21-475-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC, and Texas Eastern 
Transmission, LP.
    Description: Joint Abbreviated Application of NEXUS Gas 
Transmission, LLC, and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, for Amendment to 
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Authorization to 
Abandon by Lease.
    Filed Date: 7/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210720-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1097-002.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Questar Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Request for Rejection of Filed 
Tariff Records.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 26, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16268 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Gloria Clark, Respondent, v Jay Realty Corp., Appellant, and Guiding Eyes for the Blind, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 355]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered November 28, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The landlord failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff, who is legally blind, alleged that she was injured when she tripped and fell over an elevated sidewalk flag as she walked in front of the landlord’s building. Although plaintiff could not state with certainty what caused her fall, she testified that she fell after her right foot hit “a raised area” and that the defect was “[a] curb-like raise.” Moreover, defendant Gardner, who was walking with plaintiff at the time of the accident, testified that while he was not looking at plaintiffs feet when she tripped, he did see her fall and that she landed on the subject sidewalk flag *(see Narvaez v 2914 Third Ave. Bronx, LLC,*88 AD3d 500 [2011]; *Tiles v City of New York,*262 AD2d 174 [1999]).

We have considered the landlord’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33072(U).]
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 8 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 8

 Providing for the attendance of the House at the inaugural ceremonies 
       of the President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

 Mr. Solomon submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the attendance of the House at the inaugural ceremonies 
       of the President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved, That at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, January 20, 1997, the House 
shall proceed to the West Front of the Capitol for the purpose of 
attending the inaugural ceremonies of the President and Vice President 
of the United States; and that upon the conclusion of the ceremonies 
the House stands adjourned until noon on Tuesday, January 21, 1997.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


To the Board of Directors
US Global Nanospace, Inc.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statement of US Global Nanospace, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.
333-97213) of our report, dated June 16, 2004 appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of US Global Nanospace, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004.


/s/Grobstein, Horwath, & Company LLP

Sherman Oaks, California
July 13, 2004
#### JUNNING SHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73332.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Junning Shi, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.

OIL, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Junning Shi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent Shi seeks to challenge the BIA’s 2003 order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying Shi’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, we lack jurisdiction because Shi’s petition for review is untimely as to that decision. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Membreno v. Gonzales,*425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to reopen, because it was untimely, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Shi failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in order to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *see also Toufi-ghi,*538 F.3d at 996-97 (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### U.S. Bank National Association, Respondent, v Ruhella Hossain, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[943 NYS2d 140]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ruhella Hossain appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), dated June 8, 2011, which denied, without a hearing, her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated December 17, 2008, entered upon her default in appearing or answering the complaint and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of proper service.

Ordered that the order dated June 8, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.

The motion of the defendant Ruhella Hossain (hereinafter the defendant) pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of proper service was properly denied without a hearing. The affidavit of the process server constituted prima facie *980evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (see *Washington Mut. Bank v Holt,*71 AD3d 670 [2010]; *Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Schotter,*50 AD3d 983 [2008]). In opposition, the defendant’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the process server’s affidavit (see *Prospect Park Mgt., LLC v Beatty,*73 AD3d 885, 886 [2010]; *Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Girault,*60 AD3d 984 [2009]; *Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Schotter,*50 AD3d 983 [2008]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion (see *Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Brown,*13 AD3d 340, 341 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
#### FIA Card Services, N.A., Respondent, v Norman Rubinstein, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 906] —

In an action to recover on a revolving credit agreement, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered June 1, 2011, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $30,679.31.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated March 9, 2011, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with a prior order of the same court, dated July 9, 2010, directing the dismissal of the complaint unless the plaintiff served and filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness within 90 days. The defendant’s own submissions established that the plaintiff served and filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness within 90 days of the order dated July 9, 2010. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the note of issue and certificate of readiness were in the proper form *(see*22 NYCRR 202.21).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 696 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to treat Vet Centers as Department 

of Veterans Affairs facilities for purposes of payments or allowances 

for beneficiary travel to Department facilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 31, 2011 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to treat Vet Centers 

as Department of Veterans Affairs facilities for purposes 

of payments or allowances for beneficiary travel to Department facilities, and for other purposes. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 696 IS

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF VET CENTERS AS DEPART2 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES 

3 FOR PURPOSES OF PAYMENTS OR ALLOW4 ANCES FOR BENEFICIARY TRAVEL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111 of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(i)(1) Vet Centers shall be treated as Department 

9 facilities for purposes of providing payment of actual ex10 penses of travel or allowance for travel to or from a De11 partment facility under this section. 

12 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘Vet Center’ means 

13 a center for readjustment counseling and related mental 

14 health services for veterans under section 1712A of this 

15 title.’’. 

16 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 111(i) of such title, as 

17 added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to travel 

18 occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this 

19 Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:17

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:18

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:19

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:20

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:21

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:22

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23

Case: 1:02-cr-01166 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/02 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24