alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JAMES E. ROSS, 

v. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 6:15 CV 1900-TC 

ORDER 

LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 

Defendant. 

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on October 14, 

2015. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual 

findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 

1982). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, I adopt Judge Coffin's Findings and 

Recommendation. 

Dated this _le_ day of November, 2015. 

Ann Aiken, 

~~ United States District Judge 

Order -- Page 1 

Case 6:15-cv-01900-TC Document 10 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 1
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Water Quality Below GleCanyon Dam and ReaeraReleasesBill Vernieu

Technical Work Group MeetingNovember 30, 2005
Lake Powell Hydrology

 Surface elevation - 3555 ft on Apr Lowest elevation since May 1969 38 % of total capacity 145 ft below full pool elevation of  Large amount of deltaic sedimen

inflow areas
2005 Inflow to Lake Powell

 Apr-Jul 2005 unregulated inflow 8 111% of normal Surface elevation - 3608 ft on July  Increase of 53 ft in 2005 Resuspension of large amount of 

from inflow areas

 Resulted in low dissolved oxygen 

inflow plume as it traveled throug
September 13, 2005

Inflow plume beginning to affectGlen Canyon Dam releases•Inflow plume

•13m-38m•Minimum D.O. 1.9 mg/L

•Glen Canyon Dam Release

•T - 14.5 °C (58 °F)•D.O. - 4.5 mg/L (51 %)

Temperatu

DissOxy

Forebay

Water Quality
November 2, 2005

Surface of reservoir mixingRelease WQ further affected•Inflow plume

•28m-40m•Minimum D.O. 1.7 mg/L

•Glen Canyon Dam Release

•T - 15.8 °C (58 °F)•D.O. - 3.6 mg/L (41 %)

Forebay

Water Quality
Glen Canyon Dam Release T

Warmest releases since 197116°C (61°F) on October 8, 20056°C above 12-yr average 

200

12-y

2
NOTE: Specific Conductance in mS * 10

T (deg C) - D.O. (mg/L)

 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

101112131415161718

01JAN05 01APR05 01JUL05 

Temperat

Dissolved Oxygen

Lowest dissolved oxygen on record (since 1990)4.0 mg/L on September 25, 20053.3 mg/L on October 8, 2005 from draft tubes

Glen Canyon Dam Releas

Mean daily values

Specific Conducta

pH

Reaeration of Dam Release

 Past monitoring data has shown elevat

oxygen levels in GCD tailwater during hours (~11 pm to ~7 am)

 These spikes appear to be associated w

discharge levels from individual turbin

 Turbine discharges resulting in maxim

of releases may cause inefficient poweand damage to turbines

 Reclamation has experimented with va

operational regimes during recent expeperiod to achieve optimal balance 
Nighttime Reaeration Spik
5 @ 1600 

cfs

3 @ 2670 cfs 2 @ 2800 cfs

2 @ 1200 cfs

3 @ 2670 cfs 

Day: 3 @ 3000 cNight:2 @ 2600 c1 @ 1300 c

Reaeration Experim

Long-term monitoring at three locations:CRDT (red) GCD Draft TubeCRBD (blue) GCD tailwaterCRLF (green) Lees Ferry
Recent Release Water Q

D.O. in tailwater (blue line) reduced with cessation of experimental flowsDisplaying nighttime D.O. spikesIncrease in draft tube D.O. (red line) indicating reservoir mixing
Conclusions

D.O. in tailwater affected by GCD releasconcentrations, turbine operations, atmoequilibration and photosynthetic productiCertain aspects of dam operations can significant aeration in the GCD tailwaterConcerns remain about low operating edamage to powerplant machineryReaeration observed in CRBD station pthroughout tailwaterCooperative effort between Bureau of RArizona Game & Fish, GCMRC, environm
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 3, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00444

- CV

Dessie Maria Andrews , Appellant

v.

4300 Burch LLC and Lawrence Mathis , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CH IEF J USTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judg ment signed by the tr i a l court on June 1, 2023

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in

the judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant sh all pay all

c osts relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7977

JAMES P. PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAPTAIN WHITLOW, Security; SERGEANT TAYLOR,

Security; SERGEANT WILLIS, Security; SERGEANT

WALTON, Security; SERGEANT WHITE, Security;

MS. EPPERSON, R.N. Nurse; V. THOMPSON,

Institutional Doctor; E. B. WALKER, Chief of

Security,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-95-61-AM)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Parker v. Whitlow, No. CA-95-61-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 1995).

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 DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ASHLEY OROSCO, 

Plaintiff, 

3: 15-CV-00880-HZ 

vs. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $2,416.56 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiffs attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratlif 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiffs attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this day of July, 2016. 

Mheo A. He� \ 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00880-HZ Document 21 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 1
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CARLO VERITAS,

1:15-cv-1623-CL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 43), 

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

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude the report is 

correct.
2 –ORDER

Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 43) is adopted. The 

cross motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 20, 22) are DENIED. The parties shall confer 

and submit several proposed dates for a jury trial. Based on the Court’s schedule, the earliest 

available date to try this matter is December of 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2017.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge
#### Joseph Palker, Respondent, v MacDougal Rest. Inc., Doing Business as Off the Wagon, Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 465]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, *630J.), entered December 12, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint solely to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs claim sounding in negligent hiring, retention and supervision, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted in its entirety. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion in its entirety. Defendant’s employee allegedly pushed plaintiff down a flight of stairs. Contrary to plaintiffs contentions, under no fair construction of the complaint or interpretation of plaintiffs own account of the events could the conduct of defendant’s employee be deemed negligent. Plaintiff clearly based his action on an alleged offensive touching. Hence, defendant can be liable, if at all, only for assault and not for negligence *(see Cagliostro v Madison Sq. Garden, Inc.,*73 AD3d 534 [2010]; *Mazzaferro v Albany Motel Enters.,*127 AD2d 374 [1987]; *Smiley v North Gen. Hosp.,*59 AD3d 179, 180 [2009]), regardless of the manner in which the complaint characterized the action *(see Trott v Merit Dept. Store,*106 AD2d 158, 160 [1985]). As such, defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for its employee’s conduct because the statute of limitations elapsed in August 2008 and plaintiff did not commence this action until April 2010 *(see*CPLR 215 [3]; *Sola v Swan,*18 AD3d 363 [2005]).

We reject plaintiffs attempt, for the first time on appeal, to argue that defendant is negligent for breaching its common-law duty, as a landowner, to keep its premises safe. Not only does the complaint fail to allege as much, but plaintiff did not allege as much in opposition to defendant’s motion. Rather, this is an attempt to circumvent the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision by couching that claim in different terms *(see Trott,*106 AD2d at 160). Plaintiffs negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claim is beyond the scope of this appeal because Supreme Court dismissed that claim and plaintiff never sought to appeal from that order. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
March 4, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals
CHARLES KENNEBREW , SR. AND ELITE PROTEC TIVE SERVICES, LLC , Appellant s/Cross

- Appellees NO. 14

- 12

- 01015

- CV NO. 14

- 12

- 0 1044

- CV V.

MICHAEL R. HARRIS , Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed August 9, 2012 in favor of appellee Michael R. Harris, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore REFORM the judgment of the court below to

a. increase the actual dama ges awarded to Harris from $29, 295.29 to $64,144.19; and b. delete the portions of the judgment holding Charles Kennebrew Sr. jointly and severally liable with Elite Protective Services, LLC

. Thus, in the judgment as modified, Elite is solely liable to Harris for $64,144.19 in actua l damages and $50,023.00 in attorney’s fees, together with costs and post

judgment interest. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified in this judgment. We order appellant

/cross

- appellee Elite Protective Services, LLC to pay al l costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting October 15-16, 2008 

 List of Attachments 

 No. Attachments Presenter / Author 

1 Action Item Tracking Report  2a Letter from John Hamill dated October 9, 2008 with Strategic Science 

Plan to Support the GCDAMP, Fiscal Years 2009-12 2b Monitoring and Research Plan to Support the GCDAMP, Fiscal Years 

2009-12 

 John Hamill 

3a Vegetation Monitoring: Remote Sensing of Vegetation PPT Dr. Barbara Ralston 3b The Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout in Grand Canyon: A Lines of 

Evidence Review PPT Matthew Andersen 

3c Low Steady Summer Flows 2000 Synthesis Report PPT Barbara Ralston 3d Update: Near Shore Ecology Project PPT Matthew Andersen 3e Update on November 18-20, 2008 Colorado River Science and 

Resource Management Symposium PPT Ted Melis 

3f October 2008 sediment update PPT Dave Topping 3g Integrated Modeling Workshop notes held Sept. 11, 2008 and “Update 

on 2009 Modeling Project: recent workshop and next steps” PPT Ted Melis / Paul Grams

4a GCD AMP Science Advisors Rapid Response Review: A Draft Report to the Technical Work Group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Recommended Protocols for Core Monitoring of Sediment  

4b Science Advisors Report on Accomplishments and Proposed FY 2009 and FY 2010 Programs PPT 

  Dave Garrett 

5 Revising AMP Goal 3: Issues and  Preliminary Analysis of Extirpated or At-Risk Species in the Colorado River Ecosystem Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam PPT 

Larry Stevens 

6a Biennial Budget Workplan and Schedule 6b GCDAMP Budget and Workplan Development (2004 spreadsheet) 6c TWG Budget Process Recommendation 

Dennis Kubly  

6d TWG One-year Workplan for 2008-09 Shane Capron
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1895 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1895

For the relief of Augusto Segovia and Maria Segovia, husband and wife, 
                          and their children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 1, 1998

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of Augusto Segovia and Maria Segovia, husband and wife, 
                          and their children.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), the aliens 
named in section 3 shall be held and considered to have been lawfully 
admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to the aliens named in 
section 3 as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate number during 
the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas available 
to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

SEC. 3. COVERED ALIENS.

    The aliens named in this section are the following:
            (1) Augusto Ernesto Segovia and Maria Isabel Irene Chumbez 
        de Segovia, husband and wife.
            (2) The following children of the aliens named in paragraph 
        (1):
                    (A) Edelmira Isabel Segovia.
                    (B) Perla Franccesca Segovia.
                    (C) Augusto Thomas Segovia.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.4


         The following Executive Officers are parties to an Employment Agreement
in the form of Exhibit 10.3, which Employment Agreements differ with respect to
the terms indicated:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

       EXECUTIVE OFFICER                   SALARY             EXCESS TIME CHARGE
       -----------------                   ------             ------------------
<S>                                        <C>                        <C>

Kenneth F. Yontz                           $190,000                   $400
R. Jeffrey Harris                          $150,000                   $300
Dennis Brown                               $150,000                   $300
</TABLE>
#### Joseph Flaherty, petitioner.

November 7, 2008.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts, Appeal from order of single justice. *Moot Question.*

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

*Wendy J. Murphy*for the petitioner.

*Meghan E. O’Neill,*Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Joseph Flaherty, a potential witness at the trial of Neil Entwistle, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He had sought relief from an order of the trial judge sequestering him from the court room during the Entwistle trial. In his petition, he argued that the sequestration order violated his rights as a citizen and as counsel to the victims’ family, and that neither the judge nor Entwistle, who had moved for the sequestration of all witnesses, had articulated any justification for the sequestration order as to Flaherty.

The case is now before this court pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), but the issue raised by Flaherty — whether a legal representative of a victim’s estate who is also a potential witness cannot be excluded from the court room — is moot because the trial from which Flaherty was sequestered has concluded. See *Rasten*v. *Northeastern Univ.,*432 Mass. 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001). Although this court has on occasion considered significant issues in moot cases, we only do so where the issue has been “fully argued on both sides, where the question was certain, or at least very likely, to arise again in similar factual circumstances, and especially where appellate review could not be obtained before the recurring question would again be moot.” *Lockhart*v. *Attorney Gen.,*390 Mass. 780, 783 (1984). We decline to exercise our discretion to do so here.

*Appeal dismissed.*
# L_2009148EN.01001701.xml

| 11.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 148/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 148/17

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 25 May 2009

appointing one Italian member of the Committee of the Regions

(2009/441/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of mandate of Mr Renato SORU, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of mandate of Mr Renato SORU,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

Mr Ugo CAPPELLACCI, Presidente della Regione Sardegna.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 25 May 2009.

For the Council

The President

J. ŠEBESTA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2156

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to exempt any credit, credit guarantee or other financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture for the purchase of food or other agricultural commodities from

sanctions provided for under the Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 11, 1998

Mr. SMITH of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to exempt any

credit, credit guarantee or other financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture for the purchase

of food or other agricultural commodities from sanctions

provided for under the Act.

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

3 That section 2799aa–1(b)(2)(D) of title 22, United States

4 Code, is amended—

5 (1) in clause (i) by striking the word ‘‘or’’ at

6 the end;
2

S 2156 IS

1 (2) in clause (ii) by striking the period at the

2 end and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘, or’’; and

3 (3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:

4 ‘‘(iii) to any credit, credit guarantee, or

5 other financial assistance provided by the De6 partment of Agriculture for the purchase or

7 other provision of food or other agricultural

8 commodities.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          11,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                     347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          6,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         615<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,862
<SALES>                                            509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   509
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (186)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (186)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET USED
<F2>EQUITY IS PARTNERS' CAPITAL
<F3>ENTITY IS A PARTNERSHIP
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ahmir Cole, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni and Lindley, JJ.