alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GCDAMP River Trips and Field Activities, January through April, 2018.

Launch Take 

out

Project Number, Agency, and Project Description Location

26-Jan 2-Feb Project H, GCMRC, Rainbow trout monitoring in Lees Ferry Glen Canyon

14-Feb 2-Mar Project A, GCMRC, Streamflow, water quality, and sediment 

transport and budgeting in the Colorado River Ecosystem Grand Canyon

4-April 20-Apr Project B, GCMRC, Control network; RM 87-166 Grand Canyon

5-Apr 17-Apr Project I, AZGFD, System-wide native and non-native fish 

monitoring

Glen and Grand 

Canyon

11-Apr 24-Apr Project F, GCMRC, Aquatic food base monitoring Glen and Grand 

Canyon

24-Apr 30-Apr Project H, GCMRC, Rainbow trout monitoring in Lees Ferry Glen Canyon

26-Apr 8-May Project I, AZGFD, System-wide native and non-native fish 

monitoring

Glen and Grand 

Canyon

17-Apr 27-Apr Project G, USFWS, Humpback chub monitoring in the Little 

Colorado River LCR

28-Apr 15-May Project D, GCMRC, Cultural resources monitoring Grand Canyon
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001000686
<NAME>                          North American Resorts, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1
<CURRENCY>                                        US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            1
<CASH>                                                     0
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          2266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                          1471583
<COMMON>                                              103294
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1573611)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            2266
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (566)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2


 


[Cimarex letterhead]


 


 


[ ], 2020


 


[Executive]


[address]


 


		RE:	Severance Compensation Agreement, by and between Cimarex Energy Co. (the “Company”) and [ ] (the “Executive”)
dated as of [ ], 2020 (the “Agreement”)



 


Dear [ ],


 


Pursuant to Section
8.10 of the Agreement, this letter is to document the agreement of the Company and the Executive that, for purposes of the Agreement
and notwithstanding any language to the contrary therein, any reduction in the Executive’s base salary implemented in 2020
as part of a bona-fide cost-saving program applied generally to the Company’s executive team (i) will not be taken into account
in calculating the Executive’s “Annual Average Compensation”, as that term is defined in the Agreement, it being
agreed that Executive’s “Annual Average Compensation” shall instead be calculated assuming Executive’s
pre-reduction base salary had continued in effect without change until such time as the Executive’s base salary is restored
to its pre-reduction level or higher, and (ii) is hereby consented to in writing by Executive, and will not result, directly or
indirectly, in an event or circumstance included within the definition of “Good Reason” in the Agreement.


 


If you agree with the
foregoing, please countersign and return a copy of this letter to the undersigned.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	CIMAREX ENERGY CO.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Name:
	 	Title:




 


Accepted and agreed on __, 2020


 


 




	 	 
	Name:
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Majestic Star Casino,
      LLC,
      The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp., and Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.
      II, (collectively, the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), we, Don H. Barden, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Registrant, and Jon S. Bennett, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
      Registrant.





Dated:
      April 2, 2007





/s/
      Don H. Barden


Don
      H.
      Barden


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


The
      Majestic Star Casino, LLC


The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.


Majestic
      Star Casino Capital Corp. II





/s/
      Jon S. Bennett


Jon
      S.
      Bennett


Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer


The
      Majestic Star Casino, LLC


The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.


Majestic
      Star Casino Capital Corp II.
#### PUTNAM, Respondent, v. SUPREME TENT OF KNIGHTS OF MACCABEES et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 30, 1896.)

Action by Grace Putnam against the Supreme Tent of 1he Knights of the Maccabees, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1700 

To amend section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to require 

the Attorney General to appoint counsel for unaccompanied alien children 

and aliens with serious mental disabilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. JEFFRIES (for himself, Ms. BASS, Mr. DEUTCH, Ms. CHU of California, 

Ms. LEE, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to require the Attorney General to appoint counsel 

for unaccompanied alien children and aliens with serious 

mental disabilities, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vulnerable Immigrant 

5 Voice Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN CERTAIN CASES. 

7 (a) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR UNACCOM8 PANIED ALIEN CHILDREN AND ALIENS WITH A SERIOUS


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1700 IH

1 MENTAL DISABILITY.—Section 292 of the Immigration 

2 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362) is amended— 

3 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘In any’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘(at no expense to the Govern5 ment)’’; 

6 (3) by striking ‘‘he shall’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

7 person shall’’; and 

8 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Gov10 ernment is not required to provide counsel to aliens under 

11 subsection (a). 

12 ‘‘(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Attorney 

13 General shall appoint counsel, at the expense of the Gov14 ernment if necessary (to the extent provided in appropria15 tions Acts), to represent an alien in a removal proceeding 

16 who— 

17 ‘‘(1) has been determined by the Secretary to 

18 be an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in sec19 tion 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 

20 U.S.C. 279(g))); or 

21 ‘‘(2) is unable to represent himself or herself 

22 due to a serious mental disability that would be in23 cluded in section 3(1) of the Americans with Disabil24 ities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(1)).’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1700 IH

1 (b) FUNDING.—There are authorized to be appro2 priated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

3 amendments made by this section. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pedro ALVAREZ-BENAVIDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-20219

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 3, 2007.

*469James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

James Stafford, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Pedro Alvarez-Benavidez appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess in excess of five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. He contends the Government breached his plea agreement by fading to recommend an average-participant role in the offense, as it had promised in the agreement. Because Alvarez-Benavidez did *not*raise this issue in the district court, our review is only for plain error. *See United States v. Munoz,*408 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir.2005).

The Government concedes it breached the plea agreement; contrary to its promise, it urged the district court to adopt the Presentence Report’s upward-adjustment recommendation for an organizer-of-the-offense role. Because the Government breached the agreement, the sentence is vacated and this case is remanded for re-sentencing before a different district court judge. *See United States v. Saling,*205 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir.2000).

Alvarez-Benavidez also claims the district court did not provide him an opportunity for allocution at the sentencing hearing. Because he will be resentenced, this issue is moot. *See United States v. Luciano-Rodriguez,*442 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 747, 166 L.Ed.2d 578 (2006).

*CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 23.2**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTSWe hereby consent to the references of our firm, in the context in which they appear, and to ourreserve estimates as of August 31, 2005 and 2004, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB ofPYR Energy Corporation for the fiscal years ended August 31, 2005 and 2004, as well as in the notesto the financial statements included therein. We also hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of the references to our firm, in the context in which they appear, to our reserveestimates as of August 31, 2005 and 2004, into PYR Energy Corporation’s previously filedRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-42090, 333-51764 and 333-117182), and its previouslyfiled Registration Statements on Form S-8 (nos. 333-17189 and 333-37568) in accordance with therequirements of the Securities act of 1933, as amended.     Ryder Scott Company, L.P.   /s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.Houston, Texas
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 30309 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Eddie Darnell Jones, Sr.,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 72

- 1

Before **King, Costa,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The FPD appointed to represent Eddie Darnell Jones, Sr., has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jones has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 14, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-30309 Document: 00516237829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2022No. 21

- 30309

2 brief and the rel evant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-30309 Document: 00516237829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2022
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2668

_____________________________

ANDRE SHEFFIELD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Union County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

March 7, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andre Sheffield, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2006003EN.01001701.xml

| 6.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/17

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 as regards the extension of its scope to include aid for research and development

(2006/C 3/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| Aid No | XS 118/04 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Hungary |
| Region | Entire country |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Regional loan programme for the development of private enterprise |
| Legal basis | A Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt. Igazgatóságának 154/2004. (IX. 24.) számú határozata |
| Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company | Maximum amount of the loans available under the programme: | 2004 — EUR 4 milllion |

Aid No

XS 118/04

Member State

Hungary

Region

Entire country

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Regional loan programme for the development of private enterprise

Legal basis

A Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt. Igazgatóságának 154/2004. (IX. 24.) számú határozata

Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Maximum amount of the loans available under the programme:

2004 — EUR 4 milllion

| | 2005 — EUR 16 million |
| --- | --- |

2005 — EUR 16 million

| | 2006 — EUR 20 million |
| --- | --- |

2006 — EUR 20 million

Maximum aid intensity

In line with the regional aid map

Date of implementation

The Board of Directors of the Hungarian Development Bank adopted the programme on 24 September 2004. Loans may be taken out under the programme as from 30 November 2004

Duration of the scheme or individual aid award

31.12.2006

Objective of aid

Provision of preferential investment loans for the following objectives:

| — | The financing of investment projects to be carried out in industrial parks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The financing of investment projects to be carried out in industrial parks.

| — | The development of quality services in logistical centres and industrial parks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The development of quality services in logistical centres and industrial parks.

| — | The financing of investment projects to be carried out in enterprise zones |
| --- | --- |

—

The financing of investment projects to be carried out in enterprise zones

Economic sectors concerned

All sectors

Note

The scheme refers to the rules in the multisectoral framework regarding former ECSC sectors. Agriculture and fisheries are not eligible for aid under the scheme

Name and address of the granting authority

| Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt. |
| --- |
| Budapest, H-1051 Nádor u. 31 |

Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt.

Budapest, H-1051 Nádor u. 31

---
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

APRIL CHRISTINE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 6:16-cv-0019-JR

v. ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 23), 

and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

Although plaintiff did not file objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo. United States 

v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is 

correct. Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 23) is adopted. The 

decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and this action is to be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 25th day of May, 2017.

______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0547

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BEAU HERMAN MILLER,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable John A. Kutzman , Distr ict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 3 2021

11/03/2021
Case Number: DA 19-0547
SURVIVOR PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANONYMOUS USERS OF POPCORN TIME: DOES 1 - 16,

Defendants.

No.	 IP Date and	Time Motion	Picture ISP Software State City

1. 73.37.60.161 7/26/15	1:01 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.1 Oregon Portland

2. 71.237.173.242 7/26/15	6:24 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.1 Oregon Portland

3. 76.115.171.170 7/22/15	4:12 Survivor	(2015)	 Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.0 Oregon Beaverton

4. 73.11.112.69 7/15/15	2:23 Survivor	(2015) Comcast Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.0 Oregon Eugene

5. 98.232.179.107 7/20/15	7:34 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.0 Oregon Albany

6. 71.193.192.124 7/25/15	2:50 Survivor	(2015)	 Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.1 Oregon Portland

7. 67.160.163.124 7/29/15	6:52 Survivor	(2015)	 Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.1 Oregon Eugene

8. 71.193.237.35 8/2/15	10:15 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.1 Oregon Tualatin

9. 67.189.92.237 8/5/15	0:55 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.2 Oregon Portland

10. 71.59.138.51 8/5/15	6:03 Survivor	(2015)	 Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.2 Oregon Beaverton

11. 50.139.60.76 8/10/15	5:09 Survivor	(2015)	 Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.2 Oregon Portland

12. 24.20.46.225 8/12/15	3:28 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.2 Oregon Portland

13. 73.25.232.147 7/13/15	0:12 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.0 Oregon Portland

14. 73.25.226.92 7/13/15	0:51 Survivor	(2015)	 Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.0 Oregon Portland

15. 71.63.203.28 7/14/15	4:46 Survivor	(2015) Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.0 Oregon Portland

16. 50.137.182.152 7/15/15	0:09 Survivor	(2015)	 Comcast	Cable Popcorn-Time	0.3.8.0 Oregon Portland

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:15-cv-01587 Document 1-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 1
**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**

In connection withthe Annual Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tohis knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 23, 2006 |     | By:      |   | /s/ ULRICH GOTTSCHLING                                    |
|----------------------------|----------|----------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |     |     |   | Ulrich  Gottschling                                       |
|                       | * * | * * |   | *Chief  Financial Officer**(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
*The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., Untied States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1383

___________

Randy Davis, on behalf of *

James F. Davis, Deceased, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Larry G. Massanari, Acting * [UNPUBLISHED]

Commissioner of Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 5, 2001

Filed: September 11, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Randy Davis appeals the district court's* refusal to consider new evidence in

affirming the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income. Having carefully considered the record and the parties' submissions
-2-

on appeal, we agree with the district court that the evidence was not material. See

Jones v. Callahan, 122 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th Cir. 1997) (new evidence must pertain to

time period for which benefits are sought, and not concern later-acquired disabilities

or later deterioration of an earlier non-disabling condition). Thus, we do not reach

Davis's contention that the district court misapplied the standard for determining when

alcohol use disqualifies a claimant. We affirm the judgment of the district court. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.