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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1912 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1912

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to exclude additional reserve 
 component general and flag officers from the limitation on the number 
       of general or flag officers who may serve on active duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 2, 1998

  Mr. Ford (for himself, and Mr. Bond) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to exclude additional reserve 
 component general and flag officers from the limitation on the number 
       of general or flag officers who may serve on active duty.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL RESERVE COMPONENT GENERAL AND FLAG 
              OFFICERS FROM LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF GENERAL AND FLAG 
              OFFICERS WHO MAY SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

    Section 526(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
    ``(d) Exclusion of Certain Reserve Officers.--(1) Subject to 
paragraph (2), the limitations of this section do not apply to the 
following reserve component general or flag officers:
            ``(A) A general or flag officer who is on active duty for 
        training.
            ``(B) A general or flag officer who is on active duty under 
        a call or order specifying a period of less than 180 days.
            ``(C) A general or flag officer who is on active duty under 
        a call or order specifying a period of more than 179 days.
    ``(2) The number of general or flag officers of an armed force 
covered by paragraph (1)(C) at any one time may not exceed the number 
equal to three percent of the number specified for that armed force 
under subsection (a).''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:15-cv-02213-MO Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:15-cv-02213-MO Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:15-cv-02213-MO Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 7
22 March

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman

Case 3:15-cv-02213-MO Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:15-cv-02213-MO Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 5 of 7
 

Case 3:15-cv-02213-MO Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:15-cv-02213-MO Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 7 of 7
C ∝ u*4Db-1

Engelund and Hansen (1967), Rubin and Topping (2001)

effect included in EIS
1

10

100

1,000

6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000

MARCH 6 - MARCH 12, 2003 5,000-20,000 cfs DAILY RANGEMAY 5 - MAY 11, 2003 7,500-13,500 cfs DAILY RANGEJULY 4 - JULY 8, 2003 10,500-18,500 cfs DAILY RANGE

SAND CONCENTRATION (mg/l)

WATER DISCHARGE (ft3/s)

y = 9.28e-16 * x^(4.08) R2= 0.966y = 9.96e-22 * x^(5.49) R2= 0.912y = 4.80e-20 * x^(5.07) R2= 0.930
• STEAD

SAND 60% OSAND 

• 5,000-2

OPTIOEXPOROF ROEXPOR

• 5,000-2

OPTIOEXPOROF ROEXPOR

0

5,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,000

SUNDAY

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

SATURDAY

Data 14

STEADY FLOWROD5,000-20,000 cfs non-ROD OPTION5,000-25,000 cfs non-ROD OPTION

WATER DISCHARGE (ft3/s)

J

RELEASE PATTERNS FOR AN 800,000 ACRE-FOOT MONTH
Known

• Effects of tributary floods on suspended

concentration and grain size in the ColoRiver

• Effects of high dam releases on suspen

sand concentration and grain size 

• Effects of BHBFs and powerplant capac

releases conducted during sand-depleteperiods
Current sediment compon

of the experiment

• Can average or larger inputs of Paria R

sand, silt, and clay be managed (by sequences of dam releases) to offset thongoing erosion of fine-grained sedimenfrom Marble and Grand Canyons?...to increase turbidity over longer periods to benefit native fish?

• WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR NATUR

COOPERATE
Partially known

• Effect of daily range on sand 

concentration 

• Effects of ramping rates on sand 

concentration
0

20,000

7-15-2003

7-17-2003

7-19-2003

7-21-2003

7-23-2003

7-25-2003

7-27-2003

7-29-2003

7-31-2003

8-2-2003

8-4-2003

GRAND CANYON GAGE

DISCHARGE OF WAT

LISST 100LISST 25XEZQCABLEWAY

WATER DISCHARGE (ft PUMP 3/s)
0

20,000

7-15-2003

7-17-2003

7-19-2003

7-21-2003

7-23-2003

7-25-2003

7-27-2003

7-29-2003

7-31-2003

8-2-2003

8-4-2003

GRAND CANYON GAGE

DISCHARGE OF WAT

LISST 100LISST 25XEZQCABLEWAY

WATER DISCHARGE (ft PUMP 3/s)
Unknown

• Sand transfer between eddies and chan

during the various experimental flow op(though most eddies will lose sand durinlarger fluctuations, some key eddies maactually gain sand) 

• Maintenance of sandbars and backwate

the various experimental flow options

• Importance of seepage erosion as a fun

of downramping rate

• Sandbar-terrestrial biological linkages u

the various experimental flow options (coupled to carbon and nutrient-budgets
The big question

If Paria River sediment inputs can b

managed to offset erosion...can hydropower constraints be relaxed fluctuating, “steady”, and BHBF flowseasonally sequenced (a.k.a. desigflows) to achieve multiple managemobjectives (sandbars, turbidity, etc.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Melissa Dromgoole v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00931-CR

Trial court case number: 1840727

Trial court: County Criminal Court of Law No. 1 of Harris County

It is so ORDERED that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.

Date: August 20, 2015
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0478 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0478

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (COM(2006)0237 - C6-0237/2006 - 2006/0082(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 314 E , 21/12/2006 P. 0081 - 0082 *

P6_TA(2006)0478

Support for rural development by the EAFRD *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (COM(2006)0237 — C6-0237/2006 — 2006/0082(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0237) [1],

- having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0237/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0319/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

              To the Partners
              T. Rowe Price Realty Income Fund IV,
              America's Sales-Commission-Free Real Estate Limited
              Partnership:

              We have audited the consolidated financial statements of
              T. Rowe Price Realty Income Fund IV, America's Sales-
              Commission-Free Real Estate Limited Partnership and its
              consolidated ventures as listed in the accompanying
              index.  In connection with our audits of the
              consolidated financial statements, we also have audited
              the financial statement schedule as listed in the
              accompanying index.  These consolidated financial
              statements and financial statement schedule are the
              responsibility of the Partnership's management.  Our
              responsibility is to express an opinion on these
              consolidated financial statements and financial
              statement schedule based on our audits.

              We conducted our audits in accordance with generally
              accepted auditing standards.  Those standards require
              that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
              assurance about whether the consolidated financial
              statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit
              includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
              the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated
              financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing
              the accounting principles used and significant estimates
              made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
              consolidated financial statement presentation.  We
              believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for
              our opinion.

              In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements
              referred to above present fairly, in all material
              respects, the financial position of T. Rowe Price Realty
              Income Fund IV, America's Sales-Commission-Free Real
              Estate Limited Partnership and its consolidated ventures
              as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the results of
              their operations and their cash flows for each of the
              years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1995,
              in conformity with generally accepted accounting
              principles.  Also in our opinion, the related financial
              statement schedule, when considered in relation to the
              basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
              whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the
              information set forth therein.

              KPMG Peat Marwick LLP












              Chicago, Illinois
              January 17, 1996
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1383

(Serial No. 08/998,507)

IN RE ALBERT BAUER

William J. Sapone , Coleman Sudol Sapone P.C., of Bridgeport, Connecticut,

argued for appellant.

William LaMarca , Associate Solicitor, Office of t he Solicitor, United States Patent

and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen , Solicitor,

and Nathan K. Kelley , Associate Solicitor.

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1383

(Serial No. 08/998,507)

IN RE ALBERT BAUER



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent

Appeals and Interferences.

In CASE NO(S). 08/998,507

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (BRYSON, SCHALL and DYK, Circuit Judges .)

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: April 12, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,439
<SECURITIES>                                       549
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (197)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,139
<PP&E>                                           6,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,742)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           311
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,784
<SALES>                                         31,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,519
<CGS>                                           19,219
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (39)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,816)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MICHAEL D. ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

KING, District Judge: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:15-cv-01305-KI 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

Plaintiff Michael D. Anderson brought this action seeking review of the Commissioner's 

final decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security 

Act. The Court reversed the Commissioner's decision, remanded the case for a determination of 

benefits, and entered judgment on July 6, 2016. 

Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant has not 

objected to the request. I have reviewed the record in this case, the motion, and the supporting 

materials, including the award of benefits, the fee agreement with counsel, and the recitation of 

counsel's hours and services. Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 

789, 796 (2002), the Court finds the requested fees are reasonable. 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b) - I 

Case 2:15-cv-01305-KI Document 25 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(b) [24] is granted, and 

Plaintiff's counsel is awarded $24,995.45 in attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

Previously, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $6,666.55 under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When issuing the§ 406(b) check for 

payment to Plaintiff's attorney, the Commissioner is directed to subtract the amount previously 

awarded under EAJA and send Plaintiff's attorney the balance of $18,328.90, less any applicable 

processing or user fees prescribed by statute. Any amount withheld after all administrative and 

court attorney's fees are paid and should be released to the claimant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this j1_ of __ O_c_h_· ·_~e_r __ 2016. 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b) - 2 

Case 2:15-cv-01305-KI Document 25 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18860]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases, Special Emphasis Panel; Time Sensitive Obesity.
    Date: September 28, 2021.
    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, 
National Institutes of Health, Room 7353, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c3e3d2e323d2e38311c3924282e3d72323538383772323534723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c1e1d0e121d0e18113c1904080e1d52121518181752121514521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 27, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-18860 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2006027EN.01000801.xml

| 3.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/8

---

Communication from the Commission to sugar beet and sugar producers

(2006/C 27/06)

The Commission draws the attention of sugar beet and sugar producers to the situation on the Community sugar market as scheduled for the 2006/07 marketing year.

As a result of the stocks accumulated during the 2004/05 marketing year and the rules and limits on exports laid down by the World Trade Organisation, the 2006/07 marketing year may commence with considerable quantities of sugar available in stock, but with fewer possibilities for disposal than in the past.

Under these circumstances, the reform of the common market organisation for sugar and the resultant restructuring of sugar production will not be sufficiently advanced to ensure market balance in the 2006/07 marketing year.

Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Commission may have to take special management measures for sugar beet sown for harvest in 2006/07.

Such measures, to be laid down as transitional measures under the powers which the Council could confer on the Commission, may relate to the quantity of production eligible under the quotas for the 2006/07 marketing year and provisions on the disposal of C sugar produced during the 2005/06 marketing year.

---
2002 Basin Hydrology 

Upper Colorado River Basin

Glen Canyon Dam 

Technical Work Group Meet

Phoenix, Arizona

May 16, 2002
Aggregate Upper Colorado Riv

Precipitation - WY 2002

0

255075

100125150175

Oct-01

Nov-01

Dec-01

Jan-02

Feb-02

Percent of Average
 La

ke Powell U

n

r

e

g

ulat

e

d In

flo

Wat

e

r year 2002

0

10,

000

20,

000

30,

000

40,

000

50,

000

60,

000

Oct-01

Nov-01

Dec-01

Jan-02

Feb-02

Mar-02

Apr-02

May-02

Jun02

Cubic Feet Per Second

2002 Obse

rve

d

Average U

n

re

g

ulated

Water Year 2002 Lake Po

Unregulated Inflow
Lake Powell Unregulated Inf

Water year 2002 vs 1977

0

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000

Oct-01

Nov-01

Dec-01

Jan-02

Feb-02

Mar-02

Apr-02

May-02

Jun02

Cubic Feet Per Second2002 1977

Water Year 2002 Lake Po

Inflow Compared to 19
 Lake Powell Unregulated Inflow

Water year 2001

0

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000

01-Oct

01-N o v

01-D e c

01-Ja n

01-Fe b

01-M a r

01-Ap r

01-M a y

01Ju n

Cubic Fe e t Per Se c ond2001 Observed

Average Unregulated

Water Year 2001 Lake Po

Unregulated Inflow
200

Co

Apr–

Ma

Final 

Flaming 

Blue M

Navajo 

Lake P
Glen Canyon Dam Releases

Most Probably Hydrology (based on May 2002 Final Fo

0

2000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000

Oct-01

Nov-01

Dec-01

Jan-02

Feb-02

Mar-02

Apr-02

May-02

Jun-02

Jul-02

Aug-02

Sep-02

Oct-02

Nov-02

Dec-02

Jan-03

Average CFS Without Experimental Flows

With Experimental Flows

Glen Canyon Dam Relea

Based on May 2002 Final Fo
Lake Powell Water Surface Ele

Based on February 2002 Final F

Lake Powell Elevati

o

n

s

Bas

e

d o

n May 2002 Fin

al Fo

r

ecas

t

36003610362036303640365036603670368036903700

Oct-01

Nov-01

Dec-01

Jan-02

Feb-02

Mar-02

Apr-02

May-02

Jun-02

Jul-02

Feet

Mi

nimum P

ro

b

Maximum P

ro

b

Most P

rob/

Histo

rical
 Lake Powell Water Surface Elevat

1980 through Present

3,6103,6303,6503,6703,6903,710

Jan-80

Jan-81

Jan-82

Jan-83

Jan-84

Jan-85

Jan-86

Jan-87

Jan-88

Jan-89

Jan-90

Jan-91

Jan-92

Jan-93

Jan-94

Jan-95