alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

RUTH LIDDELL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2746-98-4 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 18, 1999 

INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL AND 

 INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, INC. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Ruth Liddell, pro se, on brief). 

 (William L. Carey; McCandlish & Lillard, on 

brief), for appellees. 

 Ruth Liddell contends that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission ("commission") erred in finding that she failed to 

prove that her left shoulder rotator cuff tear was causally 

related to her compensable September 15, 1996 injury by accident. 

Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we 

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). Unless 

we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence sustained 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

her burden of proof, the commission's findings are binding and 

conclusive upon us. See Tomko v. Michael's Plastering. Co., 210 

Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 In finding that Liddell failed to prove that her left rotator 

cuff tear was causally related to the September 15, 1996 injury by 

accident, the commission found as follows: 

We . . . are unwilling to infer causation 

under the facts of this case. Liddell 

admitted that she suffered from significant 

pre-existing shoulder problems. On 

September 30, 1996, Dr. [Robert] Stinger 

indicated that [Liddell's] work injury had 

resolved. [Liddell's] rotator cuff tears 

were not diagnosed until March 1997. At 

that time, Liddell was diagnosed with a 

rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder as 

well as the left shoulder, even though there 

is no evidence that the right shoulder was 

injured at the time of her industrial 

accident. Under these facts, we can only 

speculate whether the claimant's left 

rotator cuff tear was caused by the work 

accident . . . . 

 The commission's findings are amply supported by the 

record. Based upon the lack of any persuasive medical evidence 

to connect Liddell's left shoulder rotator cuff tear with her 

compensable work injury, we cannot say as a matter of law that 

her evidence sustained her burden of proving causation. 

 For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision. 

Affirmed.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1721 

To reauthorize appropriations for the National Women’s Rights History 

Project Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. HANNA, Mr. TONKO, Mr. KATKO, and Mr. 

REED) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize appropriations for the National Women’s 

Rights History Project Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 (a) VOTES FOR WOMEN’S TRAIL.—Section 1602 of 

5 Title XVI of Public Law 96–607 (16 U.S.C. 410ll–1) is 

6 amended in subsection (f)(2) by striking ‘‘2013’’ and in7 serting ‘‘2019’’. 

8 (b) NATIONAL WOMEN’S RIGHTS HISTORY PROJECT

9 REGISTRY AND THE NATIONAL WOMEN’S RIGHTS HIS10 TORY PROJECT PARTNERSHIP NETWORK.—Section 7111 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1721 IH

1 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 

2 (Public Law 111–11) is amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (b)(5) by striking ‘‘2013’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘2019’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (c)(4) by striking ‘‘2013’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘2019’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



Visual Networks, Inc.



Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Visual Networks, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (c) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (d) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|/s/ George J. Roberts                                                              
|                                                                                   
|George J. Roberts Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer May 14, 2004



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Visual Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Visual Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                  Exhibit 11.1
                       SIMON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC.
                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)



                                                                 For the Three Months Ended
                                                          ---------------------------------------
<S>                                                             <C>                 <C>
Basic and Diluted:                                              Dec 31, 2001        Dec 31, 2000
                                                                ------------        ------------

Common shares outstanding beginning of period:                     6,115,109           6,114,620

Common share equivalents:

         Common stock repurchased
                  Basic                                                   --                  --
                  Diluted                                                 --                  --

         Employee stock options outstanding
                  Basic                                                   --                  --
                  Diluted                                                 --                  --

         Employee stock options exercised
                  Basic                                                   --                  --
                  Diluted                                                 --                  --
                                                          ---------------------------------------
         Number of common shares and common
               share equivalents outstanding
                  Basic                                            6,115,109           6,114,620
                                                          =======================================
                  Diluted                                          6,115,109           6,114,620
                                                          =======================================

Net loss attributable to common stockholders                   $ (12,783,108)       $ (2,993,048)
                                                          =======================================
Net loss per common share
         and common share equivalent
                  Basic                                        $       (2.09)       $      (0.49)
                                                          =======================================
                  Diluted                                      $       (2.09)       $      (0.49)
                                                          =======================================
</TABLE>
|   | CERTIFICATION |
|--------|---------------|

|   | PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 6, 2009 | By:    | /s/  James A. Luksch           |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                            |   | James A. Luksch, Chief Executive Officer |
|                            |   |                                     |
|                            | By:    | /s/  Eric Skolnik              |
|                            |   | Eric Skolnik, Chief Financial Officer    |

----
ACTION ONDJ F MA MJ J A S ONDJ F MA MJ J A S ONDJ F MA MJ J A S 

Annual budget/workplan specific

GCMRC annual reports to TWG (AMWG), review progress, identify new startsTechnical Group (TG) review of reports, progress SSQs

Biennial budget specific

GCMRC draft initial biennial budget (BB) to B/CRAHG new starts identified (big picture discussions, emphasis correct?)TWG review/recommendation of draft initial BB: receive BAHG report and TG report (technical issues)AMWG review of draft initial BB/workplan: receive TWG reportGCMRC detailed BB/workplan to B/CRAHG for reviewTWG review/recommendation of final detailed BB/workplan: final BAHG reportAMWG BB/workplan approval: final TWG report

Second-year (2B) budget specific

TWG: receive TG report (technical issues)GCMRC updates of 2B/workplan to BAHG, carry-overs, new starts identifiedTWG review/recommendation of 2B/workplan: BAHG reportAMWG 2B/workplan approval: final TWG report

TWG or TWG ad hoc meetings/eventsAMWG meetings/events

TWG/AMWG Biennial Budget and Workplan Development Approach for 2010/11

Draft: October 9

2009 2010 2011 

PLAN 2010-11 budget UPDATE 2B 2011 PLAN 2012-13 budget
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 95-60736

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

FRANCISCO GRACIA-LEDESMA, 

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 

SERVICE,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(A17 941 893)

__________________________________________________

August 7, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After Gracia-Ledesma, a native citizen ofMexico, pled guilty to knowingly investing $20,800

in a scheme to possessmore than 50 pounds ofmarijuana, the Immigration and NaturalizationService

(INS) initiated deportation proceedings. Gracia-Ledesma conceded deportability and moved for a
2

waiver of deportation under §212(c) ofthe Immigration and NationalityAct. The Immigration Judge

denied the waiver, and that decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. GraciaLedesma was granted a stay of deportation pending review and now appeals.

Pending this appeal, the President signed into law the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) on April 24, 1996. Section 440 of that act eliminates judicial review

of any final deportation order against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed any

one of a number of certain enumerated offenses. 8 U.S.C. §1105(a)(a)(10). Those offenses include,

among others, any aggravated felony conviction, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(iii) or any controlled

substances conviction, 8 U.S.C. §1251(a)(2)(B). 

This court has recently held that Section 440 is presumed to retroactively bar judicial review

of a pending appeal from a BIA decision denying §212(c) discretionary relief unless the petitioner

shows that one or more of his substantive rights is curtailed by the jurisdictional bar. See MendezRosas v. I.N.S., __ F.3d __, 1996 WL350716 at *4319 (5thCir.June 26, 1996). Where a petitioner’s

sole ground of appeal is the allegation that the BIA abused its discretion in determining that the

petitioner did not merit a favorable exercise of discretionary relief under §212(c), he has not shown

that his substantive rights have been curtailed, and has not rebutted the presumption that judicial

review is retroactively barred. See id. 

Gracia-Ledesma does not challenge the fact that he is an alien properly found deportable by

reason of his conviction relating to a controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. §1251(a)(1)(B), and his

sole ground of appeal is the allegation that the BIA abused its discretion in determining that he did

not merit a favorable exercise of discretionary relief under §212(c). We therefore find that §440(a)
3

of the AEDPA appliesretroactively to Gracia-Ledesma’s pending appeal and we must DISMISS for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1524 EMMA CURRY, Widow of Columbus Curry, deceased, Petitioner, versus EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-622-BLA) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 23, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger D. Forman, FORMAN & CRANE, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADDEN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that our recent decision in Double B. Mining, Inc. v. Blankenship , 177 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1999), is dispositive of the critical issues in this case. 2 PER CURIAM:Emma Curry seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1999). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’sdecision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. * See Curry v. Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp. , BRB No. 98-622-BLA (B.R.B. Mar. 10, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DEBRA K. BEVINGTON, CV No.: 3:15-cv-00094-Kl 

Plaintiff. 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

v. 

CAROLYNW. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 

U.S.C. § 2412, it is hereby ordered that EAJA attorney's fees of $4248.83 shall be awarded to 

Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

Ifit is determined that Plaintiffs EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under 

the Department of the Treasury's Offset Program, then the check for EAJA fees shall be made 

payable to attorney Robyn M. Rebers, based upon Plaintiffs assignment of these amounts to 

Plaintiffs attorney. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiffs counsel, Robyn 

Rebers, at P.O. Box 3530, Wilsonville, Oregon 97070. 

IT IS SO ORDE~. . 

DATEDthisild~of fl'flrt ,201~ 

Presented by: 

Robyn M. Rebers OSB# 034309 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

G~d/f7 United States District Judge 

Page I Order for EAJA Fees CV No.: 3:15-00094-KI 

Case 3:15-cv-00094-KI Document 22 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 1
Core Monitoring Plan: Next Steps

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Helen Fairley (USGS)

TWG Meeting, Phoenix, AZ

March 15, 2010

TWG top priority issues/concerns

1. Expand description of Step 4: describe criteria & 

analyses that will be done before making final 

Core Monitoring recommendation

2. Conduct trade-off analyses / risk assessments to 

understand implications of choosing monitoring understand implications of choosing monitoring

approaches with more/less accuracy, statistical 

precision, sampling intensity etc. – also budget 

implications of these choices

3. TWG needs to develop criteria for evaluating and 

approving long term core monitoring proposals 

Other priority concerns

1. Overall size of monitoring budget 

2. Monitoring tied to management strategies

3. Integration of tribal values

4. Lack of socioeconomic monitoring

5. Geographic scope (include tributaries)

6. Focus on monitoring dam effects

Policy issues (AMP Strategic Plan)

 New definition of core monitoring?

 Prioritization of AMP goals?

 Arbitrary limit on budget for monitoring?

 Fl ibili fi / i i i AMP CMINS? Flexibility to refine/prioritize AMP CMINS?

 Monitoring for GCPA / AMP vs. other purposes?

 Definition of Desired Future Conditions?

 Agreement on future management actions? 

Next Steps

 GCMRC revising CMP in response to comments, 

workshop discussion, TWG chair recommendations:

 Chapter 1: Intro/history (revised/shortened)

 Chapter 2: General Framework (shortened)

 Chapter 3: (New): Development of Individual Core 

M it i Pl d M t St t Monitoring Plans and Management Strategy 

to Support Core Monitoring

 Chapter 4: Core Monitoring Proposals (by Goal)

 Chapter 5: Data Management, Quality Assurance, 

Reporting

 Revised CMP to be provided to TWG end of May, 2010

Questions?
# C_2006246EN.01000901.xml

| 13.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/9

---

Imposition by France of a public service obligation for scheduled air services between Strasbourg and central England (Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds)

(2006/C 246/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | France has decided to impose a public service obligation on scheduled air services between Strasbourg and central England (Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds) pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

France has decided to impose a public service obligation on scheduled air services between Strasbourg and central England (Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds) pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2.   The public service obligation is as follows:

2.1.   Frequency

The minimum level of service provided between Strasbourg and Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds must be one round trip per day from Monday to Friday, all year round. The flights in question must be non-stop.

2.2.   Type of aircraft used and minimum capacity provided

The services must be operated by aircraft with at least 48 seats.

2.3.   Timetables

The timetable must coincide with parliamentary sessions, i.e. arriving at Strasbourg close to but no later than 14:00 for the session beginning at 15:00 and leaving Strasbourg close to but no earlier than 17:00, when the sessions end.

2.4.   Flight bookings

Seats on these flights must be marketed by a computerised booking system.

2.5.   Continuity of service

Except in cases of force majeure, the number of flights cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the carrier must not exceed 2 % of the number of flights scheduled in any IATA scheduling season. The carrier must give a minimum of six months' notice before discontinuing these services.

Community carriers are hereby informed that the operation of air services without regard to the abovementioned public service obligation may result in administrative and/or criminal penalties.

---
SHORELINE HABIT

An Automated Appro

Classification and Mon

Mike Breedlo
The First Shoreline Habitat Classifi

Stephanie 

 8,000 CF Geomorp 100-mete

mapping 
Automated Methodology

GOAL: Provide automated shoreline-habitat data 

discharge ranges for the entire Grand Canyon Corridor.

 Classify whole surfaces by selected habitat ch

as: geomorphology, texture (roughness), vegeultimately, velocity and temperature from mod

 Develop automated techniques for extracting h

these surfaces for individual stage lines or depbracketing stage lines.
Shorel

Polygo

An autom

for delibackwashoreliimagershoreli

 For eve

downst

 Select t

shoreli(promo
Shorel

Polygo

 Connec

merge shoreli

 Resulti

enclose various shoreliand the

 Ratios 

length are one comple
Shorel

Polygo

 Physic

of shor

 Roughn

below 8
Riffle

Broad shallow area

Backwater

20.4C

18.5-20.7C

<13.5 >19.1

RM 68 Thermal infared image 7/25/00

2000 Low SumFlow test:shoreline tem

RM 64.6LThermal I

<13.4C 
Shorel

Polygo

1984

USU Shorelinesfrom Imagery
Shorel

Polygo

1984

USU Shorelinesfrom Imagery

April1996 
Shorel

Polygo

19

Marc1996 USU Shorelines

from Imagery

April1996

May200 

Dec.,2004
FIST Approache

to Measuring Chan
Surface Change
Variance From Minimum Surface: 
Variance From Minimum Surf
Hot Spots

NorthCanyonReach
Hot Spots

Eminence
Hot Spots

LCR

Tapeats

Gorge

Reach