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
 Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory: Kerrville, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Docs
                    Grand Challenge Synergies ProjectSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Welcome to the Knipling-Bushland US. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory!
 Research Entomologist Dr. Don Thomas holding a training session for the identification of ticks on livestock.
 The LAPRU in collaboration with the Veterinary Pests Genomic Center look to leverage big data solutions to mitigate the economic impact of veterinary pests.


Mission


KBUSLIRL Weather Data  Support Personnel Sherri BrownLarry Camarillo
Jeff Richards
Matthew Steele
David De La Paz


Plains Area   kim.lohmeyer@usda.gov


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
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

ANTHONY MICHAEL DELAROSA, No. 2:15-cv-02379-JR

Petitioner, ORDER

v. 

 

JOHN MYRICK, Superintendent,

Two Rivers Correctional Institution,

 Respondent.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [83] on September 9,

2019 in which she recommends that the Court deny the Second Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus [31] and enter a judgment of dismissal. Petitioner filed timely objections to the 

Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
2 - ORDER

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

The Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s objections and concludes that the 

objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed 

the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [83]. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus [31] and DISMISSES this case. However, the Court issues a Certificate of Appealability 

on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in Petitioner’s third claim for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of ____________________, 2020. 

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

AMY SPANGLER No. 2:16-CV-00090-SU

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

CITY OF MONUMENT, WILLIAM

RAY TURNER, PAT McCARY, and 

NICHOLAS DEVINE

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [161] on October 23, 

2018 in which she recommends the Court deny all Motions for Summary Judgement [128] [133]

[140]. Plaintiff and defendants City of Monument and Pat McCary filed timely objections to the 

Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
2 - ORDER

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

The Court has carefully considered all objections and concludes that the objections do not 

provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent 

portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation [161]. The 

Court DENIES all Motions for Summary Judgment [128] [133] [140]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of ____________________, 2019. 

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge
#### TOMPKINS, Respondent, v. SHEEHAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 22, 1896.)

Action by Hiram Tompkins against Cornelius Sheehan.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Exhibit 99.1

[Chase Letterhead]

March 15, 2005


Chase Funding, Inc.
343 Thornall Street
Edison, NJ  08837


RE: Annual Statements as to Compliance


Pursuant to that certain Loan Servicing Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of
February 1, 2004, Chase Mortgage Loan Asset Back Certificates, Series 2004-1, I,
Douglas C. Stephens, hereby certify that (I) a review of the activities of the
Servicer during the preceding year and the performance under this Agreement has
been made under my supervision, and (II) to the best of my knowledge, based on
such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement
for such year.

Sincerely,



/s/ Douglas C. Stephens
-------------------------------------
Douglas C. Stephens
Vice President Default Loan Servicing

HJB/em

cc:  Lorraine Rohrig

Enc.
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Kraig  Buffington
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Engineering Technician
                        Phone: (785) 712-3110
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
8.25 MAF Release Year MLFF Operation

800

600 600 600 650 700

850 850

600 600 

9

7777

8

10 10

77

17

13 13 13 13

14

18 18

13 13 

02468

101214161820

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

TCFS Release
8.25 MAF Release Year Modified MLFF Operation

800

675 600 600 600 725 825 825 575 575 

555

777

8 8

7 7

17

15

13 13 13

15

18 18

13 13 

02468

101214161820

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Daily Range TCFS Release
2006 Remaining Months: 8.25 Release - Modified MLFF

800 725 725 600 600 700 833 8

555

777

8 

17

15

13 13 13

15

18 

02468

101214161820

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

Daily Range TCFS Release
Glen Canyon Dam Generation Comparison:

ROD Operation vs. Relaxed Operation 

Max Daily Change: 12 TCFS, Up Ramp: 4 TCFS/hr, Down Ramp 3 TCFS/

200300400500600700800900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

MW

Customer Demand GC ROD Generation GC Relaxed DC & DRR G

10 Hours @ 17100 CFS

8 Hours @ 9100 CFS

Decem

13 Hours @ 17145 CFS

6 Hours @ 5145 CFS
Glen Canyon Dam Generation Comparison:

ROD Operation vs. Relaxed Operation 

Max Daily Change: 10 TCFS, Up Ramp: 4 TCFS/hr, Down Ramp 3 TCFS/

200300400500600700800900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

MW

Customer Demand GC ROD Generation GC Relaxed DC & DRR G

10 Hours @ 17100 CFS

8 Hours @ 9100 CFS

Decem

13 Hours @ 17025 CFS

6 Hours @ 7025 CFS
Average Winter Month Load Patern with Proposed Operational Ranges

17 17

9

5

05

1015202530

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2

TCFS Release

MLFF Modified Winter 

Release Range
Average Summer Month Load Patern with Proposed Operational Ranges

10 1018 18

05

1015202530

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2

TCFS Release

MLFF Modified Winter 

Release Range
Average Shoulder Month Load Patern with Proposed Operational Ranges

7 7

13 13

05

1015202530

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2

TCFS Release

MLFF

Modified Winter 

Release Range
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Update on NOV 18-20, 2008 

River Science and Reso

Management Sympos

October 15, 2008

Technical Workgroup Meeting, Pho
Program Review

 Plenary Programs on Days 1 & 3

 22 Oral Plenary Presentations Focus on Major Restoration and Recovery  Key Issues that Managers Face (Invasive S

Change, etc.)

 Include Perspectives from Stakeholders Economics & Tribal Perspectives Conflict Resolution

 Technical Program – Day 2 Oral & Poster 

 67 Oral Presentations in 4 Concurrent Tec 35 Posters and 10 – 12 Vendor & Program 
Symposium – Technical Sessio

& Chairpersons

 Effects of Dam & Reservoir Operations on Dow

Physical and Biological Resources (Melis, KenYard)

 Native Fishes Propagation & Genetic Managem

Associated Challenges in Co-managing Native Fishes in the Colorado River: Seeking SolutionSpiller & Keeler-Foster)

 Monitoring Programs: Design, Case Studies an

Management (Kubly & Olson)

 Riparian System Restoration, Monitoring and E

Control Efforts (Ralston & Swett)
Registration and Hotel Rese

 Please go to the Water Education Founda

 Final Program shall be posted by Octo Registration can be done online of by p Some student scholarships are availab Learn more about the symposium ven Win Prizes while learning!

 Participation: 

 250 to 350 scientists, resource manag

(Project WET), plus DOI
# C_2009303EN.01000501.xml

| 15.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5495 — Unicredit/Banca IMI/Eurotlx SIM JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 303/03

On 23 November 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 32009M5495. 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 32009M5495. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
! 

I 

UNJ:TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS! 

I. 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19-35011 

FILED 

JUN 5 2019 

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 

. JOHN ERIC SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:16-cv~00690-CL 

District of Oregon, 

V. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Medford 

ORDER 

Appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal (Docket Entry No. 22) is granted. 

Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

. A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court. 

JW/Mediation 

FOR TilE COURT 

By: Jonathan Westen 

Circuit Mediator · 

! 

I . 

Case 1:16-cv-00690-CL Document 114 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SHAWN MICHAEL MARTIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

V. RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

MOSMAN,J., 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

No. 2:14-cv-02057-AC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On December 28, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jolm Acosta issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [37], recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (titled 

"Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum of Law") [12] 

should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Judge Acosta recommends that the 

Motion should be GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Gilmore 

should be DISMISSED without prejudice as to Plaintiffs right to pursue the identical claim in an 

ongoing case and that the remainder of Defendants' Motion should be DENIED. No objections 

to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. 

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 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-02057-AC Document 40 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
make a de nova dete1mination 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 nova 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 addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [37] 

as my own opm1on. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 21'7" day of January, 2016. 

United 

~~~ States District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-02057-AC Document 40 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2
#### PGA Marketing Ltd., Respondent, v Windsor Plumbing Supply, Inc., Appellant.

The plaintiff sought to enforce two promissory notes which were executed in partial payment for plumbing supplies which it sold to the defendant. In defense to the plaintiff’s action, the defendant argued, *inter alia,*that some of the goods ordered were not delivered, that other goods delivered were of second-grade quality or were discontinued materials, and that the plaintiff did not bill the goods at the discounted prices to which they had agreed. The defendant also asserted the defense of fraud, claiming that the plaintiff induced it to execute the notes by assuring it that it would rectify any mistaken shipments and by promising that it would not *577enforce the notes and would return them if it procured letters of credit for the amount of the notes by the due dates of the notes *(see,*UCC art 5).

The defendant’s contentions could serve as the basis for a claim of breach of contract or breach of warranty. However, the promissory notes contained explicit waivers of the right to assert any defense, offset or counterclaim against the notes. While the waiver would not preclude a defense of fraud, the evidence in the record, taken most favorably to the defendant, does not support a claim of active intentional conduct required to support a fraud defense and is too vague to withstand a motion for summary judgment *(see, Chiat/Day v Kalimian,*105 AD2d 94; *Blue Ridge Business Brokers v Ros-Mar Club,*121 AD2d 492; see *also,*UCC 3-307 [2]; CPLR 3212 [b]).

We find no merit to the defendant’s argument that the notes were conditional and to be held "in escrow”. The only event that could have barred enforcement of the notes was the tender by the defendant of the letters of credit to which the plaintiff had been entitled by the due dates. The defendant never tendered such letters of credit. The fact that the plaintiff sent one of the notes to its bank two days prior to the due date did not constitute a breach of any conditions and does not excuse the defendant’s subsequent failure to tender the letters of credit, since the bank did not actually present the note for collection until after the due date.

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and have found them to be either academic or without merit. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of Caremark Rx, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of
the Corporation, certifies that:



| | (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 Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 9, 2005

/s/ E. Mac Crawford

---

E. Mac Crawford

Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                          4,107,994
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,303,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (47,807)
<INVENTORY>                                       167,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,739,954
<PP&E>                                         70,795,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,960,370)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 78,527,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,928,122
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           47,450
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,311,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   78,527,576
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               34,166,193
<CGS>                                                   0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               31,732,924
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                446,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,986,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                      750,952
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,235,694
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,235,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .26
        


</TABLE>