alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2067

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ricky Brian Gurley

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

 ____________

 Submitted: March 13, 2020

Filed: May 11, 2020

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Brian Gurley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and was sentenced to twenty-
four months’ imprisonment. As a special condition of supervised release, the district

court1 prohibited him from using social networking sites. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to do so. See

United States v. Sherwood, 850 F.3d 391, 395 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). 

In imposing the special condition, the court considered that Gurley’s bond had been

revoked, in part, because Gurley had posted on Facebook that certain individuals

were working covertly with law enforcement. The district court thus completed the

requisite “individualized inquiry” before imposing the special condition, which we

conclude was “reasonably related” to Gurley’s history of cyberbullying. See United

States v. Carson, 924 F.3d 467, 474 (8th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); see also 18

U.S.C. § 3583(d).

Gurley also argues that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to

allege that he knew of his prohibited status under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See Rehaif

v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019). The language of his indictment

closely followed the language of § 922(g)(1), however, and we thus conclude that it

sufficiently charged Gurley with being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United

States v. Jawher, 950 F.3d 576, 579 n.2 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejecting defendant’s

challenge to the indictment because the indictment “closely tracked the [statutory]

language . . . and sufficiently charged [the defendant] with being a prohibited person

in possession of a firearm”). 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
# C_2009191EN.01000301.xml

| 14.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5572 — Barclays/CNP/Barclays Vida Y Pensiones)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 191/02

On 6 August 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5572. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5572. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Lawrence Watson *vs.*Justices of the Dorchester Division of the District Court Department & another.1

November 24, 2008.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts. *Practice, Civil,*Relief in the nature of certiorari.

*Lawrence Watson,*pro se.

1

 Teal McRae.

Lawrence Watson (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and G. L. c. 249, § 4. We affirm.

The petitioner, a frequent litigant in the Massachusetts appellate courts, raises numerous claims arising from a series of G. L. c. 209A orders issued by the District Court more than a decade ago. The petitioner has offered no supporting material for his claims, largely, as he concedes, because of the age of the claims •— they arise from orders entered in the District Court in 1995. See *Lu*v. *Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep’t,*432 Mass. 1005, 1005-1006 (2000). To the extent that he claims the District Court has failed to provide him with materials from his underlying cases, even those claims are made without support. See *Roe*v. *Rosencratz,*443 Mass. 1021 (2005); *Santiago*v. *Commonwealth,*442 Mass. 1045 (2004). We have been presented with no basis to conclude that the single justice abused his discretion or otherwise erred.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,048,350
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,574,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 12,157,224
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         500,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           507,242
<LOANS>                                     66,671,806
<ALLOWANCE>                                    825,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              91,573,902
<DEPOSITS>                                  81,808,741
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,386,127
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       800,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,579,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              91,573,902
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,464,044
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              362,324
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               310,390
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,136,758
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,432,989
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,433,421
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,703,337
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  118,398
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              (3,150)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,257,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                864,419
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     864,419
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   552,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.56
<LOANS-NON>                                    144,022
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               727,598
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   22,291
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,944
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              825,649
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           825,649
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: 2020 Rangeland Hazard Mapheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/2020 Rangeland GH Hazard Map w MC.jpg Return to Outbreak Info


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
Ecosystem Monitoring in

Glen Canyon National Recreation A

Mark AnderAquatic ResoNational Par
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

• GLCA is larger than Grand Canyon NP

(Grand Canyon = 1.22 million acres / Glen Canyon = 1.25 million acres)

• GLCA extends north as far as Canyonlands NP

• Longest average stay of any NPS unit (4.5 days)

• “Recreation Areas” follow the same

management as any NPS unit

• Lake Powell = 90% of visitors, 13% of GLCA
What is the largest man‐mad

reservoir in the United States

Measure Mead Powe

Surface Area (acres when full) 158,000 163,0

Main Stem Length (miles) 110 186

Shoreline Length (miles) 550 2000
Limnological Monitoring
Lake Powell Temperature
Lake Powell Specific Conductance
Lake Powell Dissolved Oxygen

Quagga Mussel Monitoring
63 mussels in 2013

Thousand

Glen Canyon Dam 

 Glen Canyon Dam may look

like this in 2016 Lake Havasu

Quagga Mussel Monitoring
• Water Clarity

• Phytoplankton/Zooplankton• Fishery• Waterfowl• Aquatic Vegetation• Harmful Algal Blooms

• Dissolved Oxygen

• Dreissena polymorpha

Quagga Mussel Effects Monitoring
Hydrocarbon Monitoring

• Estimated 400,000 watercraft per year

• Many 2‐stroke engines

• Sunlight + Hydrocarbons = PAHs

• Potential for bioaccumulation and build up in sediments

• Side Canyon Study (2001‐2)• Personal Watercraft EIS, 2003• Long‐term Hydrocarbon Monitoring

• Monitoring Approach

• Sentinel Sites

• Water and Sediment• SPMDs and CLAMs
Mercury Investigations

Lake Powell Striped Bass

Consumption Advisory (UT and AZ)

(from Dangling Rope Marina south to the dam)

• Children should limit their consumption of

Striped Bass to one 4‐ounce meal per

month.

• Women of childbearing age should limit

their consumption of Striped Bass to two 8‐

ounce meals per month.

• Adult women past childbearing age and

men older than 16 should limit theirconsumption of Striped Bass to eight, 8‐

ounce meals per month.
Mercury Investigations
Sedimentation

• Visitor Use Impact

• Paiute Farm Marina, Hite

• Waterfalls

• Contaminant Accumulation

/ Release

• Bioaccumulation

• Oxygen Demand
Tip of the Iceberg

• Fisheries Partners

• RIPs, UDWR, ERWP, AGFD, GCMRC, etc.

• Springs

• Grazing Impacts• Hanging Gardens

• Climate Change

• Visitor Impacts – emerging contaminants

• River Terrace Monitoring• Public Health Beach Monitoring• Integrated Pest Management

• Compliance
04 Oct – 21 Nov 2005 14 Oct – 22 A

  
# C_2009266EN.01000201.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5605 — Credit Mutuel/Monabanq)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 266/03

On 8 September 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5605. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5605. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-008-CR

TAVARIS R. PRINCE	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Tavaris R. Prince attempts to appeal his conviction for burglary of a habitation.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

	Pursuant to rule 26.2 of the rules of appellate procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed, or within ninety days after the date sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  Appellant’s sentence was imposed on September 4, 2003.  Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due October 6, 2003, but was not filed until January 6, 2004.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

	On January 13, 2004, we notified Appellant of the apparent untimeliness of the notice of appeal and stated that we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  Appellant did not file a response.

	Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.  See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 26, 2004
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.

The meetings 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 Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; P41 NCBIB Review B-SEP.                    

*Date:*                         October 26-28, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 957, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-4773,                         *zhour@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 31, 2021.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-19155 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John K. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John K. Williams, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John K. Williams, Defendant—Appellant.

Nos. 06-8031, 06-8032, 06-8036.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2007.

Decided: June 1, 2007.

Alvin Ernest Entin, Entin, Della Fera & Greenberg, PA, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John K. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders and judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motions for reconsideration or to alter/amend. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*