alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

49459 

Federal Register 

Vol. 86, No. 168 

Thursday, September 2, 2021 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of August 27, 2021 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority 

under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to direct 

the drawdown of up to $60 million in defense articles and services of 

the Department of Defense, and military education and training, to provide 

assistance to Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such 

section to direct such a drawdown. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 27, 2021 

[FR Doc. 2021–19180 

Filed 9–1–21; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC1BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
[941 NYS2d 497]

#### In the Matter of Tracy A. Bloodsaw (Admitted as Tracy Ann Bloodsaw), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 5, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(Kevin M. Doyle*of counsel), for petitioner.

*227No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Tracy Ann Bloodsaw was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on January 14, 1998. At all times relevant herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

By order entered July 7, 2011, respondent was suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and (iv), based upon her noncooperation with a Committee investigation and her failure or refusal to pay money owed a client *(Matter of Bloodsaw, 87*AD3d 190 [2011]). Although served with both the motion and the subsequently entered order of suspension, respondent has not appeared in the proceeding.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) now petitions for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), disbarring respondent on the grounds that she has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and (iv), and has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from the date of the order for suspension. The Committee further notes that it found no evidence that respondent notified her clients about her immediate suspension, notwithstanding her obligation to do so pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.13 (c).

Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s suspension order, and respondent has failed to appear or apply in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, respondent should be disbarred, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately *(see Matter of Kennedy,*55 AD3d 169 [2008]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted, and respondent is disbarred, effective the date hereof.

Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ., concur.

*228Respondent disbarred, and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

Technical Work Group 

January 21, 2000 

Meeting Effectiveness – Agenda 

1. Operating procedures (see attachment 1) 

2. Capturing action items 

Proposal: to have each item from TWG meetings 

captured on flipchart or transparency, for review at 

the end of each meeting. 

3. Robert’s Rules of Order – open discussion 

4. Meeting schedule – open discussion 

Does having a meeting immediately before the 

AMWG meeting give TWG members enough time to 

adequately advise their AMWG members? Does it 

give GCMRC and Reclamation staff adequate time to 

respond to TWG issues and concerns? 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

Technical Work Group 

January 21, 2000 

Operating Procedures

Public, Visitors, and Open and Closed Meetings

“ . . . Only members of the TWG or their alternate may participate in 

discussion of the group. Appropriate staff of Reclamation and 

GCMRC shall provide pertinent information relevant to discussion 

when appropriate. A member or alternate may request a 

representative from their organization to respond to questions or 

make presentations, when approved by the group. The public will be 

allowed to comment after discussion of each agenda item requiring a 

decision of the group and at the end of the TWG meeting or as 

provided in the agenda.”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damian Gardner, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 493]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered June 30, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 26, 2010, the People’s motion to dismiss the appeal was granted and the appeal was dismissed. By opinion and order of the Court of Appeals dated October 25, 2011, the decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 26, 2010, was reversed and the matter was remitted to this Court for consideration of the merits of the appeal *(see People v Ventura,*17 NY3d 675 [2011]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Although the defendant was not in actual possession of the subject cocaine, the testimony established that he had constructive possession of the cocaine *(see People v Ortiz,*61 AD3d 779, 780 [2009]; *People v Coleman,*5 AD3d 980, 980-981 [2004]; *People v Bailey,*295 AD2d 632, 633 [2002]). Florio, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

May 3-4, 2004

List of Attachments

No Attachment Author / Presenter

1 Attendance Sheets

2 Action Items

3 Projects Recommended by GCMRC for Deferral from

FY04 to FY05” table presented at March 30-31,

meeting.

4a

4b

Revisiting Experimental Flow Designs for Sediment and

Fishery Resources WY 2005 and Beyond (PPT)

GCMRC’s Proposed Experimental Flow Options for the

Colorado River Ecosystem in WY 2005 and Beyond

Ted Melis

5a

5b

Update on Core Monitoring Team Meeting – April 9,

2004 (PPT)

Memo to AMWG & TWG, Subject: Long-term Core

Monitoring Plan and Position Statement

Jeff Lovich

6a

6b

6c

Summary of Results from GCD AMP TWG MultiAttribute Evaluation Workshop, December 2003

Summary of Results from GCD AMP TWG MultiAttribute Evaluation Workshop, Dated May 28, 2003

Review of Results and Recommendations from the

GCMRC 2000-2003 Remote-sensing Initiative fro

Monitoring Environmental Resources within the

Colorado River Ecosystem

Ted Melis

Ted Melis

Phillip Davis
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
 Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research: Manhattan, KS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Central Small Grain Genotyping Laboratory
                    Units
                        Center for Grain and Animal Health Research: Manhattan, KS
                                    Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit
                                    Grain Quality and Structure Research Unit
                                    Stored Product Insect & Engineering Research UnitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Manhattan, Kansas Center for Grain and Animal Health Research Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications
- Hessian Fly Research Lab
- Sequencing Facility
- USDA Central Small Grain Genotyping Lab

Collaborations The Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:


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
#### Jacob Cortright, Respondent, *v.*The Village of Mount Vernon, Appellant.

(Argued October 9, 1890;

decided October 28, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made December 10,1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*Joseph S. Wood*for appellant.

*Martin J. Keogh*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
## IN **THE SUPREME**  **COURT OF**  **TEXAS Misc.**  **Docket No.**  

# 14-9088 **DENIAL OF**  **REQUEST TO**  **TRANSFER CASES**  **FROM THE**  **SEVENTH COURT**  **OF APPEALS**  **The Supreme**  **Court denies** **the request**  **to transfer**  **the following**  **cases from** **the Seventh**  **Court of**  **Appeals District,**  **Amarillo, Texas:**  **Case Numbers:**  **07-13-00051-CV and**  **07-13-00401-CV**

**In Re**  **R Wayne Johnson,**  **Relator ORDERED**  **in Chambers,**  **With the**  **Seal thereof**  **affixed at**  **the City**  **of Austin,**  **this**

## _!:::5_ **day of**  **April, 2014**  

# B**�**

# A.\-t� **BLAKE HAWTHORNE,**  **CLERK ,**  **THE SUPREME**  **COURT OF**  **TEXAS**
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group 

Motions for March 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Motion: AMWG Charges the SAB, the GCMRC, and the TWG jointly to develop a long-term 

experimental program that responds to the AMP Strategic Plan and incorporates existing legal 

requirements to be completed and brought to the AMWG by January 2005. The SAB, the GCMRC, 

and the TWG will bring a draft of the program to the AMWG at a Fall 2004 meeting, and the AMWG 

will decide at that meeting whether additional recommendations to the Secretary for flows in 

WY05 are necessary. AMWG requests that compliance on a January 2005 long-term experimental 

flow program to be targeted for completion and the program implemented by July 2005. 

Discussion. 

Without objection, the motion was passed. 

Motion: To approve the TWG-approved budget as distributed to the AMWG, with the following 

changes: 

 To reprogram the budget amount in Line 91 to allow for concurrent multi-pass mainstream 

and mark-recapture mainstem and LCR population estimates in the spring. 

 To direct GCMRC to do as much simulation modeling as possible [vis-à-vis the two fishcounting protocols] and report to AMWG at its Fall 2004 meeting. 

 To carryover any leftover funds in Line 142 (public outreach) from 2004 for the same purpose 

in 2005. 

Voting Results: Yes = 22 No = 0 Abstaining = 0 

Motion passed. 

Motion: Modify Line 84 in the 2004 Work Plan (line 84 in the proposed 2005 budget) to evaluate 

the Hualapai Tribe’s fish facility to see if it is in compliance with the USFWS feasibility study and, 

if so, to work on culture techniques for the HBC. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. 

Voting Results: Yes = 18 No = 2 Abstaining = 1 

Abstaining: (Mike Yeatts) I don’t have enough information. Not sure we’re in 2004. 

Motion passed.
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2171

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 21, 1998

Referred to the Committee on Commerce

AN ACT

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in the

State of Arkansas.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2171 RFH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

2 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

3 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), the Federal En4 ergy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the li5 censee for FERC Project No. 10455 (and after reasonable

6 notice), is authorized, in accordance with the good faith,

7 due diligence and public interest requirements of section

8 13 and the Commission’s procedures under such section,

9 to extend the time required for commencement of con10 struction of the project for up to a maximum of three con11 secutive two-year periods. This section shall take effect for

12 the project upon the expiration of the extension (issued

13 by the Commission under section 13) of the period re14 quired for commencement of such project.

Passed the Senate October 2, 1998.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the  undersigned  officer of Obsidian  Enterprises,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  certifies  that the  annual  report  on Form 10-K of the
Company for the fiscal year ended  October 31,  2003,  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 12, 2004         /s/ Rick D. Snow
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Rick D. Snow
                                Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ALAN L. M. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 6:15-cv-01468-MC

v. OPINION AND ORDER

LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, a state 

of Oregon entity, JACE SMITH, JANE 

DOE 1, JAMES HARRIS, LISA RUPP, 

OMNI TRADING INC., PUDDLE 

JUMPER TOWING, INC., OSP, 

VANNESSA COLLINS, JESSE THORN, 

and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

by and through its DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Plaintiff, pro se, filed a complaint and amended complaint against various defendants on 

August 5, 2015, and August 10, 2015, respectively. See Pl.’s Compl. 1–6, ECF No. 1; Pl.’s Am. 

Compl. 1–3, ECF No. 5. On August 13, 2015, this Court issued an opinion dismissing plaintiff’s 

complaints for failure to state a claim. See Order 1–3, ECF No. 6. In consideration of plaintiff’s 

pro se status, this Court granted plaintiff until September 14, 2015, “to file an amended 

complaint curing the deficiencies identified.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff has not taken additional action 

Case 6:15-cv-01468-MC Document 7 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

since that time. Accordingly, because plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s order, ECF No. 

6, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 15th day of September, 2014.

____________________________

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-01468-MC Document 7 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 2
#### PAUL G. DeMURO, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. JOHN JAY SULLIVAN, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

See same ease below: 64 *N. J. Super.*103.

*Mr. William N. Gurtman*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Archibald Xrieger*for the respondents.

January 16, 1961.

Denied.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

AUTOMATA PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT ALAN SPERRY, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-02283-MO

 JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

This matter before the court on plaintiff’s motion, the court finds and ORDERS: 

(1) Defendant Robert Alan Sperry has willfully infringed the rights of plaintiff in 

violation of 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq (the “Copyright Act”). 

(2) Defendant Robert Alan Sperry has willfully refused to participate in these 

proceedings with notice. 

(3) A permanent injunction is ordered enjoining defendant from infringing plaintiff’s 

rights in their motion picture, including without limitation using the internet to reproduce, 

distribute or copy plaintiff’s motion picture, and further directing defendant to destroy all 

unauthorized copies of plaintiff’s motion pictures and to delete all software used to make or 

distribute those copies or exchange unlicensed content using the BitTorrent protocol. 

(4) Defendant is further enjoined from using BitTorrent or the Internet for the 

copying or downloading of content in violation of U.S. copyright law. 

Case 3:15-cv-02283-MO Document 40 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER Page 2 of 2 

(5) Statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 are awarded to plaintiff in the 

amount of $5,000 to give the statute full force and effect and indicate to the general public that 

plaintiff’s claims and these proceedings should not be disregarded or ignored. 

(6) Plaintiff is awarded reasonable costs and fees to be determined pursuant to FRCP 

54. 

Dated: July 25, 2016 

 

 

 

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman 

 Chief United States District Judge 

 Michael W. Mosman 

Case 3:15-cv-02283-MO Document 40 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 2
#### ARTHUR E. ROMANO, ALBERT M. BOGATH AND JOHN A. NATIVO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, HENRY C. SAVINO, ARTHUR C. MAURELLO AND ETHEL M. HOYT, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. WALTER E. NOWAKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued January 23, 24, 1961

Decided January 24, 1961.

*120
      *Mr. Ralph W. Ghandless*argued the cause for the appellants *(Messrs.*Ghandless, *Weller &*Kramer, attorneys).

*Mr. John W. Leyden*argued the cause for the respondents.

Pee Ctjeiam.

On October 8, 1959 after a recall election in which all incumbents were recalled and new couneilmen elected for the unexpired terms, plaintiff Nowakowski was elected mayor. In May 1960 the couneilmen purported to hold an organization meeting pursuant to *R. 8.*40:81-7, at which defendant Demarest was “elected” mayor by a maj ority of the council members.

We are satisfied that the recall of the former mayor and couneilmen created a vacancy in the office of mayor which the new couneilmen properly filled by the election of this plaintiff. The statute referred to above, calling for an organization meeting after a municipal election, does not apply.

The remaining question is whether the mayor holds office for a fixed term or serves at the pleasure of the council. We are satisfied that the statute contemplated a term coextensive with the terms of the couneilmen, and that there was no power to unseat him and to elect another in his stead.

The judgment is *accordingly*reversed and the matter remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs in harmony with this opinion. The mandate shall issue immediately.

For reversal—Chief Justice Weintbatjb, and Justices Jacobs, Fbarcis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettiro and Haneiian—7.

*For*affirmance—None.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48982-48983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18883]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-100-2021]


Approval of Expansion of Subzone 50R; VF Outdoor, LLC; Ontario, 
California

    On July 12, 2021, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade 
Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Long 
Beach, grantee of FTZ 50, requesting an expansion of Subzone 50R, on 
behalf of VF Outdoor, LLC, in Ontario, California.
    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and 
Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public 
comment (86 FR 37737-37738, July 26, 2021). The FTZ staff examiner 
reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for 
approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board 
Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to expand 
Subzone 50R was approved on August 26, 2021, subject to the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject 
to FTZ 50's 2,000-acre activation limit.


[[Page 48983]]


    Dated: August 26, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18883 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P