alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Monitoring Humpback ChGrand Canyon 2007;Concurrent SamplingM.E. Andersen and L.G. Coggins, Jr.Southwest Biological Science CenterGrand Canyon Monitoring and Research Technical Work Group Meeting April 2007
Goal

 Provide accurate estimate of adu

humpback chub population in Gr
Location

 More than 90% of Grand 

Canyon humpback chub are found in the LCR and mainstem Colorado in the LCR reach (Paukert, Coggins, Flaccus2006)
Sampling through 2006

 Humpback chub in Grand Canyon 

monitored in the Little Colorado Rthe mainstem Colorado River sin1980s

 Sampling in different rivers has n

taken place at the same time
Population Estimation Mod

 Closed models (e.g., CAPTURE) u

historically

 Population estimates based on data 

 Age-structured mark recapture (A

model peer-reviewed and current(Coggins et al. 2006)

 Population estimates based on data 

years
Problem Statement

 If sampling for population estima

place in mainstem and tributary atimes, some individuals may be m

 Potential sources of estimation e

 Movement in and out of sampling lo Gear avoidance following first captu Skip spawning 
Bias (accuracy) and Precisi

 Percent R

(Accuracy

 Standard 

(Precision
Kitchell panel (2003) recommen

 Compare ASMR to other open mo

 Completed in Coggins et al. 2006 Favorable comparison

 Computer modeling to assess bia

 Completed by Otis and Wickham 20 Favorable comparison
Otis and Wickham (2006) concl

 Accuracy (bias) and precision of 

same or better than other models

 Consistency is valuable Sampling design of ASMR could 

(also: Pollock 1982)

 Biology and cost were not consid
Sampling Designs Evaluate

 Design 1: February, March, April Design 3: August, September, Oc Design 5: April, May, September, 

(LCR only), July, August (COR on(Current GCMRC/AMP sampling d
Spring sampling has least b

VONB-Total-PRB

Year

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Percent Relative Bias

-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

0.00.10.2
Concurrent Sampling Justif

 Concurrent sampling design in sp

least bias

 Provides information for humpba

Protocol Evaluation Panel in wint

 2007 approach requested and ap

USFWS Upper Colorado River Pro

 Described in approved work plan 
Modifying Considerations

 Differing capture probabilities LC Seasonal movements Seasonal life history (spawning in  Handling effects Costs – limited to 2 concurrent sa

2007
2007 Approach - Spring

 Little Colorado River

 Continue existing protocol Continue timing (April and May)

 Colorado River – LCR reach

 Deploy trammel and hoop nets at ap

same time as LCR spring sampling – 

 Collect blood samples for trammel/s

 Colorado River – 8th year of canyo

sampling of fish community

 Electrofishing
2007 Approach - Fall

 Little Colorado River

 Continue protocol Continue timing (August and Septem

 Colorado River – canyon wide sa

fish community

 Electrofishing

 Backwater seining
Additional Concurrent Trips 

 Sonic tags + Nonnative control Lower 1200 m LCR + PIT tag ante
LCR

Sa

Assessment Trip

Sept 8-23,2002
Trip Conditions

GCD LCR PHANTOM

Discharge of the Colorado River below Glen Cany

(USGS gage #09379910),at Phantom Ranch (USG

and the Little Colorado River near Cameron (USGfrom September 6 to September 30, 2002. 
Non-lethal sampling only in LCR reach, 

RM 56.2 to 65.7


Tab le 1 . To tal ca tch (N ) and catch p er un it e ffo rt (

hou r o f e le ctro fish ing ) o f fis h co llec ted in the con trLittl e Co lorado Ri ver (LCR)(RM 56 .2-61.6 ), and b Sep tembe r, 2002. SE =stand ard e rro r.Spec ies Reach N CPURainbo w trout

Con trol 157 19 .0Above LCR 400 29 .7Below LCR 49 5.32Exper im en tal1 449 19 .8

Brown trou t

Con trol 0 Above LCR 1 0.05Below LCR 1 0.09Exper im en tal1 2 0.06

Hu mpback chub

Con trol 0 Above LCR 1 0.06Below LCR 2 0.17Exper im en tal1 3 0.1

Fl anne lm ou thsu cker

Con trol 0 Above LCR 7 0.56Below LCR 6 0.70Exper im en tal1 13 0.62

Blueh ead sucke r

Con trol 0 Above LCR 0 Below LCR 2 0.20Exper im en tal1 2 0.08

Co mm on ca rp

Con trol 0 Above LCR 4 0.33Below LCR 1 0.1Exper im en tal1 5 0.24

1 Exper im en tal reach re fers to the area s above and be 
Rainbow Trout CPUE in the LCR Reach

0

100200300400500600700800900

1990
Rainbow Trout Length Frequency for the Control Reach (R

44-52)

0

102030405060

75 125 175 225 275 325 375 425

Total length (mm)

Number collected

Rainbow Trout Length Frequency for the Area Above the 

LCR (RM 56.2-61.6)

0

50

100150200

50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 

Total length (mm)

Number collected

Rainbow Trout Length Frequency for the Area Below the LCR (RM

62.3-65.7)

02468

1012141618

50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 

Total length (mm)

Number collected
Trout Diet Analysis

•

Stomach contents from a total of 36 rainbow 

brown trout were flushed with gastric lavag

•

The length range for rainbow trout was 280 

(mean=327 mm), whereas the brown trout mmm. 

•

Preliminary results show that one rainbow t

did have unidentified fish remains (likely a incidence of piscivory

of 2.7%. The brown 

have any identifiable fish remains.
Mechanical Removal Ass

•

Stomachs were removed from 10

trout (62-384 mm) and two brow(282 mm, 316 mm) during mockevent at Tanner Rapids, RM70-7

•

Evaluated crew size, gear, time f

sampling, sample processing, eudisposal.
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 1547

____________ STEVEN EDWARD STEIN,

Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 31, 2018]

PER CURIAM. We have for review Steven Edward Stein’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Stein’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Stein’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in
Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Stein’s appeal pen ding the disposition of Hitchcock v.
State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) . After this- 2

-

Court decided Hitchcock , Stein responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this ca se. After reviewing Stein’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Stein is not entitled to relief. A jury
convicted Stein of two counts of first

- degree murder and recommended a sentence
of death f or both murders by a vote of ten to two. Stein v. State , 632 So. 2d 1361 , 1364 (Fla. 1994). Stein’s sentences of death became final in 1994. Stein v.
Florida , 513 U.S. 834 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stein’s
sentences of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the
denial of Stein’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Stein , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered.
LA BARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hit chcock
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

.- 3

-

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Linda McCallum , Judge

- Case No. 161991CF001505AXXXMA Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorne y General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellee
#### COCHRAN v. STEPHENS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1896.)

Action by William F. Cochran against H. Clay Stephens.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs.
EBER GRAMAJO, 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Petitioner, Case No. 2:15-cv-2341-YY 

v. 

MARKNOOTH, 

Superintendent, Snake River Correctional 

Institution, 

Defendant. 

MOSMAN,J., 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On March 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Order [70], directing 

that Petitioner's Motion for Discovery [55] be DENIED. Petitioner objected [86], and Defendant 

filed a response [92]. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the 

court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). If the magistrate judge has ruled on a non-dispositive matter, 

her decision is modified only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court is not required, 

however, to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the 

magistrate judge as to those portions of the order to which no objections are addressed. Id. 

While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the order depends on whether 

objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the 

order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review, I agree with Judge You's order and I DENY Petitioner's Motion for 

Discovery [ 5 5]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

,., ~-

DATED this l/S day of September, 2019. 

MICHAEL W. OSMAN 

Chief United Sates District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER
##### 



Exhibit 10.19
 
 DELL INC.
Stock Unit Agreement
  1. Vesting
  2. Expiration
   3. Rights as a Stockholder
 4. Agreement With Respect to Taxes
  5. Leaves of Absence
 A. Vesting During Leave
 B. Effect of Termination During Leave
 6. Return of Share Value




---



##### 




    
    Are a principal, owner, officer, director, shareholder or other equity owner (other than a
holder of less than 5% of the outstanding shares or other equity interests of a publicly
traded company) of a Direct Competitor (as defined below);
    
    Are a partner or joint venture in any business or other enterprise or undertaking with a
Direct Competitor; or
    
    Serve or perform work (including consulting or advisory services) for a Direct Competitor
that is similar in a material way to the work you performed for the Company in the twelve
months preceding the termination of your Employment.
    7. Transferability 
    8. Trading Restrictions
 9. Incorporation of Plan
 10. Prospectus http://inside.us.dell.com/legal/corporate.htm
 11. Notice 




---



##### 



12. No Right to Continued Employment 
 13. Limitation on Rights No Right to Future Grants; Extraordinary Item of Compensation
 14. Data Privacy Consent
 15. Governing Law and Venue
 16. Effect of Invalid Provisions
 17. Acceptance of Terms and Conditions
   By:
    
    /s/ Dominick DiCosimoDominick DiCosimo, VP, Global HR Operations
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of Medallion Financial Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                                     |  |                   
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Alvin Murstein
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 6, 2012
# C_2005310EN.01000701.xml

| 8.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/7

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2005/C 310/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

GREECE

Operating licences revoked

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GEE BEE AIR | Vouliagmenis Street 602A |
| GR-16452 Argyroupolis |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

GEE BEE AIR

Vouliagmenis Street 602A

A

GR-16452 Argyroupolis

passengers, mail, cargo

21.11.2005

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JENNIFER LAWSON, 

v. 

CAROLYN L. COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 3:15 CV 01999-TC 

ORDER 

Defendant. 

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on November 8, 

2016. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual 

findings de novo review. Lorin Co1:p. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 

1982). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no eirnr. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, I adopt Judge Coffin's Findings and 

Recommendation. 

Dated this &y of December, 2016. 

~CJMA 

Order -- Page 1 

.....__., Ann Aiken, United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01999-TC Document 24 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of The State of New York ex rel. James Robert Moore, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 919]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered September 16, 2011. The judgment converted the matter to a CPLR article 78 proceeding and denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
# L_2009094EN.01001501.xml

| 8.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 94/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/15

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 286/2009

of 7 April 2009

entering certain names in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Melva de Andalucía (PGI), Caballa de Andalucía (PGI), Ovos Moles de Aveiro (PGI), Castagna di Vallerano (PDO))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s applications to register the names ‘Melva de Andalucía’ and ‘Caballa de Andalucía’, Portugal’s application to register the name ‘Oves Moles de Aveiro’ and Italy’s application to register the name ‘Castagna di Vallerano’ have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s applications to register the names ‘Melva de Andalucía’ and ‘Caballa de Andalucía’, Portugal’s application to register the name ‘Oves Moles de Aveiro’ and Italy’s application to register the name ‘Castagna di Vallerano’ have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, these names should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, these names should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The names contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 18 (Melva de Andalucía), OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 21 (Caballa de Andalucía), OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p. 42 (Ovos Moles de Aveiro), OJ C 190, 29.7.2008, p. 7 (Castagna di Vallerano).

2

---

ANNEX

1.

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY

Castagna di Vallerano (PDO)

Class 1.7.   Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom

SPAIN

Melva de Andalucía (PGI)

Caballa de Andalucía (PGI)

2.

Class 2.4.   Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares

PORTUGAL

Ovos Moles de Aveiro (PGI)

---
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Paul Katzeff, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officers 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;



5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the Equivalent functions);



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005
|                      | 
|By:                   |  | /s/ Paul Katzeff                     
|                      |  | Paul Katzeff, Chief Executive Officer
Order filed, February 18, 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00991

- CR

____________ BRYAN O KOSSIE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 1356861



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due February 03, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Judy Fox , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
Ryan J. McLellan, OSB No. 023908 

1mclellan@smithfreed.com 

StephenR. Rasmussen, OSB No. 871480 

stephem@smithfreed.com 

Smith Freed Eberhard P.C. 

111 SW Fifth A venue, Suite 43 00 

Po1iland, Oregon 97204 

Telephone: 503-227-2424 

Facsimile: 503-227-2535 

Of Attorneys for Defendants Karsan, Inc. 

and Sandra Lewis 

BRIAN EASON, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:15-cv-02335-SI 

vs. 

ELMER'S RESTAURANTS, INC., an Oregon 

corporation, ELMER'S FRANCHISE 

SYSTEMS, INC., an Oregon corporation, 

KARSAN, INC., a Washington corporation, 

and SANDRA LEWIS, an individual, 

Defendants. 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties and signed on behalf of each party's counsel 

indicated below, and it appearing to the Court that this matter has been fully compromised and 

settled, it is hereby 

Ill 

Ill 

STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL-Page 1 

SMITH FREED EBERHARD P.C. 

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 4300 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

T: {503) 227-2424 

F: (503) 227-2535 
ORDERED that a general judgment of dismissal be entered with prejudice and without costs 

to the parties. 

DATED this 

~ 3 dayof ~~--=~1:----~~~~~~~~ =--="' 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

<j-18 ~17 

DATED 

DATED 

'.SI 2.I I 1 I -

DATED 

Ad 

Of 

.;/L~ Attorneys 

AKiel,OSBNo~ for Plaintiff ~ 

cLell , OSB No. 023908 

eys for Defendants Karsan, Inc. and 

Sandra ewis 

/' I 

>~ . ct:'1 d //V(.( J /') />. / c~ , 

Cari E. Waters, OSB No. 042240 

Of Attorneys for Defs. Elmer's Restaurants, Inc. 

and Elmer's Franchise Systems, Inc. 

STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL - Page 2 

SMITH FREED EBERHARD P.C. 

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 4300 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

T: (503) 227-2424 

F: (503) 227-2535