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
 Plant Genetics Research: Columbia, MO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbia, Missouri Plant Genetics Research People & Locations







Nathan  Grant
                        Plant Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Research Biologist
                        Phone: (360) 791-0457
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)
                            **Publications**
                                                (Clicking on the reprint icon
                                                    Reprint Icon
                                                    will take you to the publication reprint.)Deleterious mutations predicted in the sorghum (sorghum bicolor) maturity (Ma) and dwarf (Dw) genes from whole genome resequencing
                                                        

- (Peer Reviewed Journal)Grant, N.P., Toy, J.J., Funnell-Harris, D.L., Sattler, S.E. 2023. Deleterious mutations predicted in the sorghum (sorghum bicolor) maturity (Ma) and dwarf (Dw) genes from whole genome resequencing. Scientific Reports. 13:16638. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42306-8.


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
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-21704, No. 33-24096, No. 33-37300, No. 33-65104 and No. 33-56717 of McClatchy
Newspapers, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 2, 1996, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1995.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Sacramento, California
March 29, 1996
#### In the Matter of Surf City Enterprises of Syracuse, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 908]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County [Brian F. DeJoseph, J.], entered January 11, 2012) to review a determination of respondent. The determination imposed a civil penalty against petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that it violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) (selling alcohol to minors), 9 NYCRR 48.2 (conduct of licensed premises) and 9 NYCRR 48.3 (conformance with local and other regulations). Contrary to the contention of petitioner, we conclude that the determination that it violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and 9 NYCRR 48.2 is supported by substantial evidence *(see generally Matter of Shorts Bar of Rochester Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*17 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2005]). Several law enforcement officers who participated in the raid of petitioner’s establishment testified at the hearing that they observed numerous underage patrons consuming alcohol, and the record includes several supporting depositions of underage patrons who admitted consuming alcohol on the premises *(see Matter of JMH, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*61 AD3d 1260, 1262 [2009]). We do not address petitioner’s contention that the admissions were obtained in violation of the patrons’ constitutional rights inasmuch as petitioner lacks standing to raise that contention *(cf. People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351, 355 [1989]; *see generally Warth v Seldin,*422 US 490, 498-500 [1975]; *Tileston v Ullman,*318 US 44, 46 [1943]).

*1459We further conclude that the determination that petitioner violated 9 NYCRR 48.3 by employing unlicensed security guards in violation of state regulations is supported by substantial evidence *(see generally Shorts Bar of Rochester,*17 AD3d at 1102). Petitioner’s contention with respect to that charge concerns the resolution of conflicting testimony, and it is well established that the findings of an Administrative Law Judge that turn on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight *(see Matter of Grossberg v Christian,*245 AD2d 118 [1997]; *see also Matter of Café La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*43 AD3d 280, 281 [2007]). We see no basis to disturb those findings. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.
exv10w3





Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




Sections 1 and 11 of the Employment Agreement are hereby amended effective the 2nd day of December,
2008 (“Amendment”) by and between the parties to the Employment Agreement (as named below),
effective the 24th day of May, 2007 (“Employment Agreement”) for the purpose of making the
following changes:



Section 1 shall be revised to read as follows:



Section 1. Term. Employer hereby continues the employment of Employee and Employee hereby
accepts continued employment with Employer for a term (the “Term”) beginning on the effective date
hereof (“Commencement Date”) and continuing until December 31, 2011.



Section 11 shall be revised as follows in the second full paragraph thereof: Line 12 — the word
“termination” shall be removed and replaced with “Term” and Line 14 — the words “at any time”
shall be removed and replaced with “upon 90 days prior written notice”.



Except as set forth above in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in
full force and effect.



As evidenced by signature below, the parties to the Agreement and this Amendment agree to the terms
and conditions of this Amendment, both as to form and substance.



EMPLOYEE:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature:
	 	/s/ Glenn D. McDowell	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Print Name: Glenn D. McDowell	 	 	 	 






EMPLOYER:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Daniel C. Arnold	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Daniel C. Arnold, Chairman of the Board of Directors
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 539-015]
 On April 30, 2020, Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC filed an application for a new major license for the 2.21-megawatt Mother Ann Lee Hydroelectric Station Water Power Project (Mother Ann Lee Project) (FERC No. 539). The Mother Ann Lee Project is located on the Kentucky River in Mercer, Jessamine, and Garrard Counties, Kentucky. The project does not occupy federal land. In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on February 26, 2021, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to license the Mother Ann Lee Project. The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision. The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateCommission issues EA
October 2021. 1Comments on EA
November 2021.
 Any
                    
                     questions regarding this notice may be directed to Joshua Dub at (202) 502-8138 or 
                    *joshua.dub@ferc.gov.* Dated: August 9, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1 year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the Mother Ann Lee Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's regulations, the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance date of this notice. Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2021-17382 Filed 8-12-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation,
Civil Action No. 03C 5757

Plaintiff,
Judge Lindberg

v.
Magistrate Judge Ashman

)
)
)
)
)
)
SAHAR FOODS, INC., d/b/a SAHAR }
FOOD & LIQUOR, an Illinois )
corporation, AWADH HUSSAIN )
SALEH, an individual, SOBHI )
NASSER, an individual, and GAMAL )
AL-HELALI, an individual, )
Defendants. }
MEMORANDUM OF JUDGMENT

Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Lorillard Tobacco Company as follows:
1. On October 27, 2004, judgment was entered against Defendant Sobhi Nasser,
whose last known address is 6936 N. Leoti, Chicago, IL 60646, in the amount of $25,000, and on

March 3, 2005, attorneys’ fees and costs were awarded against Nasser in the amount of

$13,127.35 for a total judgment of $38,127.35.


2. On October 27, 2004, judgment was entered against Defendant Gamal Al-Helali,
whose last known address is 3653 Irving Park Road, Chicago, IL 60618, in the amount of
$25,000, and on March 3, 2005, attorneys’ fees and costs were awarded against Al-Helali in the
amount of $10,246.80 for a total judgment of $35.246.80.

3. On November 15, 2004, judgment was entered against Defendant Awadh Hussain
Saleh, whose last known address is 6939 N. Leoti, Chicago, IL 60646, in the amount of $25,000,
and on March 3, 2005, attorneys’ fees and costs were awarded against Saleh in the amount of
$13,840.60 for a total judgment of $38,840.60.

4. On January 24, 2005, judgment was entered against Defendant Sahar Foods, Inc.,
whose last known address is 1761 West Division, Chicago, IL 60622, in the amount of $25,000.
Plaintiff Lorillard is also entitled to post-judgment interest, at the applicable statutory rate, from

the date of entry of such judgment.

Dated: April 20, 2006

United Stgtes Senior District Court Jud;

Herbert H. Finn, ARDC 6205685

Howard K. Jeruchimowitz, ARDC 6243182
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 456-8400
UNDER SEAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

WILL MICHAEL aka 

WILLIAM MICHAEL, 

Defendant. 

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: 

COUNTl 

·(Threatening Federal Law Enforcement Officer) 

INDICTMENT 

[18 u.s.c. § 115; 

18 U.S.C. § 875(c)] 

UNDER SEAL 

On or about April 12, 2014, in Portland, Multnomah County, in the District of Oregon, 

WILL MICHAEL, also known as WILLIAM MICHAEL, defendant herein, did unlawfully 

threaten to murder Mike Roop, Chief Ranger of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for 

Oregon and Washington, a Federal law enforcement officer, with intent to impede, intimidate 

and interfere with Chief Ranger Mike Roop while he was engaged in the performance of his 

official duties, and with intent to retaliate against Chief Ranger MikeRoop on account of his 

official duties; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 115. 

Case 3:14-cr-00432-KI Document 1 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 2
.. 

COUNT2 

(Interstate Threatening Communication) 

On or about April 12, 2014, in Portland, Multnomah County, in the District of Oregon, 

WILL MICHAEL, also known as WILLIAM MICHAEL, defendant herein, did unlawfully and 

willfully transmit in interstate commerce via telephone from the State of Pennsylvania to the 

State of Oregon, a communication to Chief Ranger Mike Roop of the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management for Oregon and Washington, and the communication contained a threat to injure 

and kill Chief Ranger Mike Roop; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 

875(c). 

Dated this il.'lf day of October 2014. 

Presented by: 

S. AMANDA MARSHALL 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

Indictment 

A TRUE BILL. 

Pagel 

Case 3:14-cr-00432-KI Document 1 Filed 10/28/14 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I, Michael A. Martino,President and Chief Executive Officer of Sonus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: | August 5, 2008                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |
|   |
|   | /s/ Michael A. Martino                 |
|   | Michael A. Martino                     |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|        |                                        |  |

 

----
#### Ennis, solicitor-general, *v.*Pollock *et al.,*commissioners.

February 25, 1915.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior ' court. March 5, 1914.

*Junius F. Hillyer*and W. *M. Henry,*for plaintiff.

*M. B. Eubanks, Max Meyerhardt,*and *Dean & Dean,*for defendants.

Per Curiam.

While there may be cases in which the writ of mandamus may be used to compel county officials to discharge a duty imposed upon them by law, or they may be enjoined from the commission of a trespass or other tort under circumstances rendering equitable interposition propel-, yet a most substantial part of the controversy involved in the present case is whether the duty of keeping in repair or rebuilding a certain bridge located in the corporate limits of the City of Rome rests upon the County of Floyd or upon the City of Rome. This controversy can not be properly determined, in the absence of the county as a party, by seeking to enjoin the county commissioners from maintaining the present bridge. Accordingly (the point as to whether there were proper parties having been raised), there was no error in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction against the county commissioners alone, seeking to prevent them from maintaining the bridge as being a nuisance, and compelling them to build a new bridge.

*(а)*Whether or not the county commissioners could have been joined with the county as parties, it is unnecessary to decide.

(б) The injunction sought was furthermore largely mandatory in character.

(c) It is not decided whether, even with proper parties, there was any merit in the petition, or whether on the County of Floyd rather than on the City of Rome rested the duty of maintaining the bridge or of rebuilding it, if necessary. On this subject see Acts 1880-81, p. 540, sec. 3; Acts 1909, pp. 1255, 1285, sec. 51; *Commissioners of Polk County*v. *Cedartown,*110 *Ga.*824 (36 S. E. 50) ; *Georgia Railway*& *Electric Co.*v. *Tompkins,*138 *Ga.*596 (5), 600 (75 S. E. 664).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Rickey B. Newell v. Litton Loan Servicing LLC

Appellate case number: 01-12-00710-CV

Trial court case number: 1013020A

Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County

On March 18, 2013, appellant Rickey B. Newell and appellee Litton Loan Servicing, 

LLC filed a joint “Agreed Motion for Entry of Judgment,” asking us to vacate the trial court’s 

judgment, to declare void or valid various filings related to real property, and to deny all other 

relief sought by the appellant in his lawsuit. The parties explain that their intention in requesting 

this relief is to allow Litton to begin new foreclosure proceedings against the appellant.

The parties did not specifically request that we dismiss the appeal, although as authority 

for their request that we enter judgment they cite to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.1(a)(2)(A), pertaining to voluntary dismissals in civil cases. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(2)(A). Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) permits us to “render judgment effectuating the parties’ 

agreements” in accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed 

with the clerk. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

The relief sought by the parties in their joint motion is beyond that authorized by Rule 

42.1(a)(2)(A). We may not “order a new trial merely on the agreement of the parties absent 

reversible error, or . . . vacate a trial court’s judgment absent reversible error or a settlement.” 

Notes and Comments, TEX. R. APP. P. 42. The parties do not indicate that the dispute between 

them has been settled, nor do they point us to reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. For 

these reasons, the motion of the parties is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 19, 2013
##### 



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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
  /s/ ANDREW HAMERAndrew HamerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302

I, Robert De Vaere, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Epimmune Inc.;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2005

                                  /s/ Robert De Vaere
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Robert De Vaere
                                  Vice President, Finance and Administration and
                                  Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

CATHERINE ISABELLA MORRIS and

KATHERINE ANNE SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, US

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC

HOLDER, JR., U.S. SENATOR RON

WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR JEFF

MERKLEY, OREGON GOVERNOR,

JOHN KITZHABER, OREGON

ATTORNEY GENERAL ELLEN

ROSENBLUM, OREGON SPEAKER OF

THE HOUSE TINA KOTEK,

Defendants.

Civil Case No. 3:14-CV-01019-KI

JUDGMENT

Catherine Isabella Morris

PO Box 173

Salem, OR 97308

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:14-cv-01019-KI Document 6 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 2
Katherine Anne Smith

Salvation Army

30 SW 2nd Ave

Portland, OR 97204

Pro Se Plaintiffs

KING, Judge:

Based on the record,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2014.

 /s/ Garr M. King 

GARR M. KING

United States District Court Judge

Page 2 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:14-cv-01019-KI Document 6 Filed 07/11/14 Page 2 of 2