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

U.S. Geological Survey

Low Steady Summer Flow

Synthesis Project

B. E. Ralston, M.E. Andersen GCMRC

GCD Hydrograph 

0

5000

100001500020000250003000035000

3/1/2000

4/1/2000

5/1/2000

6/1/2000

Discharge
Introduction & Backgro

 February 2000: Completion of Plan of E

Flows for Endangered Fish (SWCA 200

 April - September 2000: Implementation 

experimental hydrograph

 25 Studies initiated to evaluate effects 

physical, biological and cultural resour

 August 2008: AMWG requested synthe

information
Hypotheses by Season 

Hydrograph

 Hydrograph designed 

around life history of native fishes

 Spawning in Spring Summer larval 

development

 Early fall exotic fish 

disturbance

GCD Hydrogra

0

5000

100001500020000250003000035000

3/1/2000

4/1/2000

5/1/2000

Discharge
Synthesis Approac

Four Phases over approximate

(reviewed/approved by Science 

 Synopsis:

 Phase I. Summary of individual stud

compilation and preliminary evaluatSummary and evaluation of recommSummer 2008.

 Phase II. Workshop for secondary an

coordination with Science Advisors, Scientist, cooperators (incorporating modeling efforts). September 2008.
Synthesis Approach (co

 Synthesis (if recommended):

 Phase II (cont’d). Summary of works

2008. If recommended, development work plan for FY 2010. 

 Phase III. Secondary analysis and sy

synthesis volume development. FY 2

 Phase IV. Publication of synthesis v

2011. (Could be integrated with next report)
Time Line and Produc

 Phase I – Draft Open File Report – July 

File Report Final - August 2008

 Phase II – Workshop – September 2008 

for subsequent synthesis (if merited/ID funding needs). Draft November 2008, fDecember 2008

 Phase III – Secondary analysis/synthes

drafts reviewed/edited September 2010

 Phase IV – Completion and publication 

FY 11

FY08 FY09 FY10 
Current Status

March – Initiated synopsis and data 

consolidation through cooperativwith Northern Arizona University

June - Anticipate draft summary co
Summary Budget –Phase I & 

GCMRC – Biologist & DASA (5 pp) and Ecosystem Scientist salary (3 pp)

3

NAU cooperator 2Workshop & Publications 3Supplies Overhead 1Total Budget 10
• T. Kim Yazzie – Fish Biologist

• Navajo Nation Department of Fish & Wildlife – Management & 
San Juan River

• Major Tributary to the Colorado River

• Flows 383 miles through Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah

• Endangered Fish Species Protected by Federal, State, Tribal listing

• Razorback Sucker, Colorado Pikeminnow, Roundtail chub, &

Humpback chub
Public Service Company of New Mexico (P

Passage Facility ‐ 2003
 

• San Juan River Basin

RecoveryImplementation Program(SJRRIP) ‐ 1992

• Funded by B.O.R.

• Management Actions on

SJR

• Conserve CPM & RBS in

the basin with recoverygoals est. under ESA

• Proceed H2O

development
Public Service Company of New Mexico (P

Passage Facility ‐ 2003
 

• San Juan River Basin

RecoveryImplementation Program(SJRRIP)

• Management Actions

• Augmentation Pgrm

• Fish Passage

• Monitoring• Non‐native Removal
PIT Tag ‐ Passive Integrated Techn
PIT Antenna Locations on SJR 

• April 1 – October 30 (212 days)

• 7 days a week

• Selective fish passage were all fish counted & released upstream

• Native species are weighed, length is recorded & released• Endangered species are scanned, weighed, length, & released• Non‐natives length recorded, checked for tags & removed
• Native species

• Colorado pikeminnow (40 yrs.) Flannelmouth sucker (35 yrs.) M

• Razorback suckers (40 yrs.) Bluehead sucker (20 yrs.) Sp• Roundtail chub (15 yrs.)
Non‐native species in the San Juan River

• Channel catfish• Black Bullhead

Common carp

Green sunfish

Walleye

White Sucker

Ra

Br

• Yellow Bullhead Bluegill Red shiner Fa

• Largemouth bass

• Smallmouth bass

• Striped bass
Expected Fish in 2015 ‐ 12,000

Native

March 472April 1818May 1607June 2613July 3395August 421Sept 8Oct 59

TOTAL YR. 10,393

Non Native

5

3

22

467792211

879
Navajo Agricultural Products Industry

Razorback Sucker Grow‐Out Ponds

• NAPI Razorback Grow‐out Ponds

• Operated by NNDFW• Accounts for approximately 40% of Razorback stocking annually
• 3 Ponds

• West Avocet 3 acres

• East Avocet 2.4 acres• Hidden Pond 2.5 acres

• Ponds are in use from April ‐ October
NAPI Pond Operation 

Daily Operations• Monitor Water Quality• Feeding

• Temperature• Body weight

• MortalitiesMonthly Operation• Sample Counts

• >30 individuals

• TL, SL, WT

• Calculate feeding rates
HARVEST

• Passive Harvest

• Begins when 70% >300mm

• Fyke nets• 2 Stocking locations

• Active Harvest

• Drain Ponds

• Harvest remaining fish

• 4 Stocking locations
Augmentation Success 

• NAPI Ponds have the best growth and return rates of razorback 

• Razorback Sucker in‐river survival is best from NAPI ponds

• 6000 ‐ 8000 fish/year are stocked from the NAPI ponds into the 
Monitoring/ Non ‐ native remov






Any Questions?
#### In the Matter of the Faculty Association of Suffolk Community College, Appellant, v Public Employment Relations Board of the State of New York et al., Respondents, and Suffolk County, Intervenor-Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB) which found that the intervenor-respondent Suffolk County’s refusal to pay salary increments pursuant to an expired collective bargaining agreement did not violate Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e), the petitioner Faculty Association of Suffolk Community College (hereinafter the Association) appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered November 7, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to PERB and the intervenor-respondent.

The record reveals that on September 6, 1984, the Association filed an improper practice charge with PERB against Suffolk County, alleging that the county failed to continue to pay step increments pursuant to an expired collective bargain*308ing agreement. However, subsequent to the filing, the Association and Suffolk County entered into a successor agreement which was retroactive to the expiration date of the predecessor contract and which did not provide for a step advancement during the first year of the new agreement. Following PERB’s dismissal of the improper practice charge, the Association commenced the instant proceeding to review the determination of PERB, and the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the proceeding as academic. We now affirm.

The retroactive effect of the successor agreement and the Association’s insistence that it does not seek to alter the terms of that agreement render the issues raised on this appeal moot, for a determination of the appeal would not directly affect the rights of the parties *(see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*5Gb NY2d 707; *Toscano v Van Lindt,*112 AD2d 364). Moreover, this case presents narrow issues which do not warrant an exception to the mootness doctrine, nor does the record demonstrate a strong likelihood of a repetition of the instant controversy in the near future *(see, e.g., Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra; Matter of Cortez v Wilmot,*115 AD2d 140). Accordingly, we conclude that the court of first instance properly determined that the instant proceeding is academic. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
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
 National Germplasm Resources Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    References
                        Plant Inventory Books
                                    Atlas of Guatamalan Crop Wild Relatives
                    NewsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center National Germplasm Resources Laboratory People & Locations







Laura  Gu

(Lirong)
                        National Germplasm Resources Laboratory

                        




                        
                        IT Specialist
                        Phone: (301) 504-5699
                        
                        
                        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
<PAGE>

Exhibit 12. Computation of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Predecessor                             The Company
                                           ------------------------       --------------------------------------------
                                           Year ended September 30,                  Year ended September 30,
                                                    1995                     1996       1997        1998        1999
                                                  --------                 --------   --------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                               <C>                      <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                $    723                 $  1,013   $  2,962   $   7,884   $  12,567
  Portion of rental expense
   representative of interest                          465                      883      1,267       1,689       1,517
                                                  --------                 --------   --------   ---------   ---------
Total fixed charges                                  1,188                    1,896      4,229       9,573      14,084
                                                  ========                 ========   ========   =========   =========
 Earnings:
  Income (loss) before income taxes               $    852                 $  6,896   $  7,916   $   7,227    $(23,183)
  Fixed charges                                      1,188                    1,896      4,229       9,573      14,084
                                                  --------                 --------   --------   ---------    --------
Total earnings                                       2,040                    8,792     12,145      16,800      (9,099)
                                                  ========                 ========   ========   =========    ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                1.7 to 1                 4.6 to 1   2.9 to 1   1.75 to 1       (1)
Excess of fixed charges over earnings               N/A                      N/A        N/A         N/A       $ 37,267
</TABLE>

(1) Earnings are not adequate to cover fixed charges.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR TO DATE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-01-1999
<CASH>                                          3,072
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (386)
<INVENTORY>                                    31,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               56,469
<PP&E>                                         61,657
<DEPRECIATION>                               (31,452)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                102,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,784
<BONDS>                                        32,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           59
<OTHER-SE>                                     29,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  102,608
<SALES>                                        93,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               93,074
<CGS>                                          59,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  84,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,008)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 6,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,530
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,958
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,958
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.67


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1700 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Vulnerable Immigrant Voice Act''.

SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN CERTAIN CASES.

    (a) Appointment of Counsel for Unaccompanied Alien Children and 
Aliens With a Serious Mental Disability.--Section 292 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``In any'';
            (2) by striking ``(at no expense to the Government)'';
            (3) by striking ``he shall'' and inserting ``the person 
        shall''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Government is not 
required to provide counsel to aliens under subsection (a).
    ``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Attorney General shall 
appoint counsel, at the expense of the Government if necessary (to the 
extent provided in appropriations Acts), to represent an alien in a 
removal proceeding who--
            ``(1) has been determined by the Secretary to be an 
        unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 462 of the 
        Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))); or
            ``(2) is unable to represent himself or herself due to a 
        serious mental disability that would be included in section 
        3(1) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
        12102(1)).''.
    (b) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2010001EN.01000401.xml

| 5.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 1/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 1/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5693 — Hal Holding/Safilo Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 1/02

On 11 December 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 32009M5693. 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 32009M5693. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Company                  Jurisdiction of Incorporation
---------------------------                  -----------------------------

Mediconsult.com (UK) Ltd.                    Northern Ireland

Mediconsult.com (US), Ltd.                   Delaware

Mediconsult.com Limited                      Bermuda

3542491 Canada Inc.                          Canada

Pharminfonet                                 Delaware

iHealth Inc.                                 Delaware

Cyberdiet, Inc.                              California

Cyber-Tech, Inc.                             New Jersey

Mood Sciences, Inc.                          California

Physicians' Online, Inc.                     Delaware

Web North Star Interactive, Corp             New York
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 22 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FATENA DAHDAL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. THORN AMERICAS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-3162 (D.C. No. 97-2119-GTV) (Kansas)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCKand HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Fatena Dahdal appeals from the judgment entered by the district court in1 We grant defendant’s motion to supplement the reco rd and deny

defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal on various grounds. -2- favor of Thorn Americas, Inc. on a jury verdict in her Title VII action against the company. Ms. Dahdal, acting pro se, contends the d istrict court made a number of trial errors including permitting improper testi mony from a psychologist testifying for the defendant and improper closing argument by defendant’s attorney, failing to sanction defendant’s corporate representative, giving erroneous jury instructions, failing to submit puni tive damages correctly, and refusing to set aside the jury verdict. Appellate review of any of these issues requires a review of the trial transcript, which Ms . Dahdal has failed to provide. Under these circumstances, we have no choice but to affirm the judgment of the district court. See Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co. , 969 F.2d 977, 979 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing cases). 1 AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
Technical Work Group Meeting

DRAFT AGENDA

Glen Canyon Dam

Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting

Crowne Plaza Hotel

100 N. First Street

Conference Rooms: Navajo B&C

Phoenix AZ

Feb. 13, 2001

START

TIME TOPIC PERSON PURPOSE MATERIALS

9:30 a.m. Welcome and

Administrative

Rick Johnson 1. Introductions and

Determination of Quorum

2. Review Action Items from

January 9-10, 2001, Meeting

3. Approval of Dec. 7-8, 2000

Meeting Minutes

4. Approval of January 9-10,

2001, Meeting Minutes

Agenda

Action Items

Draft Minutes

9:45 a.m. Legislative & AMWG

Updates

Randy Peterson AMWG Charter Legislative

Updates

10 a.m. Strategic Plan -

Goals 8-12 and 6

 - response to comments

 - Quant. targets process

Mary Orton and

Ad Hoc

Committee

Discussion Strategic Plan

12 noon L U N C H

1 p.m. Integrated Water Quality

Program PEP Review

Jim Ruane Presentation IWQP PEP

Review

2 p.m. AMP Process Diagrams Dennis Kubly Discussion AMP Process

Diagrams

3 p.m. Stock Assessment

Workshop and Report

Barry Gold Information Workshop Reports

River Trip Update and

Agenda

Conceptual Modeling /

Science Symposium

4 p.m. Wrap-up and Adjourn Rick Johnson
Technical Work Group Meeting

DRAFT AGENDA

Glen Canyon Dam

Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting

Crowne Plaza Hotel

100 N. First Street

Conference Rooms: Navajo B&C

Phoenix AZ

Feb. 14, 2001

START

TIME TOPIC PERSON PURPOSE MATERIALS

8 a.m. Welcome and

Administrative

Rick Johnson Introductions

Determination of Quorum

Agenda

8:15 a.m. Hydrology Update Randy Peterson Information Hydrology 

8:45 a.m. Interim Surplus

Guidelines EIS

Randy Peterson Information

9:30a.m. B R E A K 

9:45 a.m. TCD Expert Panel

Workshop Report

Dennis Kubly Information Workshop Reports

10:30 a.m. Ad Hoc Group

Updates

Gary Burton 1. Narrative AHG Updates

Randy Peterson 2. Experimental Flows

Cliff Barrett 3. Budget Process

Clayton Palmer 4. LSSF Study Cost Analysis

Randy Peterson 5. Strategic Plan Writing Team

11:15 a.m. Wrap-up Rick Johnson 1. Future agenda items

2. Meeting Review

12:30 -

3 p.m.

Tour of WAPA

Southwest Office

Clayton Palmer Information