alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting, January 13, 2022 

ACTION ITEMS, MOTIONS, and VOTES

MOTIONS 

Motion to Adopt Meeting Minutes

[Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides] Requested a change to comments made during the October 

meeting. [Tara Ashby, Bureau of Reclamation] Will make that change. 

Both the meeting minutes from June 16-17, 2021, and October 13-14, 2021, were adopted by consensus 

with no objections. 

ACTION ITEMS

• [Lonnie Pilkington, NPS] Will provide an update at an upcoming TWG meeting on riparian 

vegetation. 

• [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Will contact Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni, to help find people 

who can assist with the peer review for cultural resources during the 2021 GCMRC Annual 

Report Peer Review process.

• [Ben Reeder, Leslie James, and Seth Shanahan] Will consider developing a charge for the 

Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG). 

• [TWG Members] Will pay closer attention to the projected June 2022 water quality data and 

consider whether the dates of sampling and the TWG meeting can be aligned to discuss possible 

mitigation opportunities. 

• [Brian Healy, NPS] Will confirm whether it is possible to post (when available) the southwestern 

willow flycatcher survey reports, or part or whole, to the GCDAMP wiki page.

• [TWG Members] Anyone who finds non-native fish should coordinate with Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation, so he can get that material to the Utah State University project team. And Brian 

Healey at NPS will be compiling NNF detections, so send findings to him as well.

• [TWG Members] There is continuing interest to hear about temperature control and fish 

passage, and there might be steps the TWG can do such as discuss scenarios, create an ad hoc, 

and/or use Charles Yackulic's model to better evaluate temperature related control efforts for 

smallmouth bass. 

• [Reclamation] Put placeholder(s) on the calendar for the webinar(s) where the TWG is 

requested to provide input to the process for the decision to implement spring experiments. 

• [TWG Members] Provide comments back to Larry Stevens on two draft motions that are 

expected to be considered by the AMWG. 

• [Kirk Young, USFWS] Will bring more information back to the TWG as the item on the 

reintroduction of Colorado pikeminnow moves forward. 
• [Brian Healy and Jeff Arnold, NPS; and Mike Moran and Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] Will work 

together to advance the issue of aquatic vegetation removal as a method to help with the 

brown trout problem, and then report back to the TWG. 

• [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Will convene BAHG meetings for the purpose of bringing forth a 

budget recommendation to the April TWG meeting.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUVENTINO RODARTE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY, a public entity; et

al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17126

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00468-KAW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 18, 2017** 

San Francisco, California

Before: D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,*** Chief

District Judge.

 

FILED

APR 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District

Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
Juventino Rodarte (“Rodarte”) appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of Appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees

because Rodarte failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the

Deputy Sheriffs’ use of a police canine to effectuate Rodarte’s arrest was

objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Long v. City & Cty. of

Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2007). 

The district court also properly granted summary judgment on the Deputy

Sheriffs’ qualified immunity defense because their conduct did not violate

Rodarte’s clearly established right to be free from the use of excessive force during

an arrest. See Green v. City & County of San Francisco, 751 F.3d 1039, 1051–52

(9th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n officer will be denied qualified immunity in a § 1983 action

only if (1) the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting

injury, show that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the

right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident such that a

reasonable officer would have understood her conduct to be unlawful in that

situation.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

2
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

SANTWAN REESE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION September 28, 2023

v No. 362140 Wayne Circuit Court JALEN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, HOUSEHOLD
OF FAITH CHURCH, HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH, INC., and PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 20

- 006573

- NI

Defendant s, and

THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH IS THE
CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, INC., also known as, THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH
IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

SANTWAN REESE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v No. 362151 Wayne Circuit Court JALEN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE
HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH IS THE
CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, INC., also known as, THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH LC No. 20

- 006573

- NI- 2

-

IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE
PILL AR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH,

Defendants,
and

HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH CHURCH and HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellants.

Before: S HAPIRO

, P .J., and M. J. K ELLY and C AMERON , JJ

.

S HAPIRO

, P. J

. ( concurring ).

I concur. As the majority makes clear, p laintiff testified that it was his belief, based on his direct observation, that defendant Jalen James was intentionally attempting to run him over. If this was not sufficiently clear from the initial impact, plain tiff testified that

, after the initial impact, James put the van in reverse and attempted to back up to strike plaintiff a second time. By contrast, James testified that it was not his intent to hit plaintiff.

If this testimony was the extent of the evidence, I would conclude that there was a material question of fact for the jury . But this was not the extent of the evidence. James had already pleaded guilty to assault with intent to do great bodily harm , MCL 750.84(1)(a), and during his plea, while under oath, he admitted that he intended to hit plaintiff. Given that binding admission, I agree that there is no question of material fact and that the trial court erred by denying summary disposition
to defendant owner.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
* 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. 96-40649

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIAM EARL DOYLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

REINFORD KANE, Lt.; FNU MILLER;

J. DETRICE; ED MCELUEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CV-136

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Earl Doyle, Texas prisoner #556492, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action as

frivolous. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. See

Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992).
No. 96-40649

- 2 -

Doyle argues for the first time on appeal that he wrote the

wrong date in his statement of facts as to when the incident

occurred and that, as a result, the limitations period had not

yet run when he filed his complaint. Doyle has shown no plain

error with respect to this belated allegation. Robertson v.

Plano City of Tex., 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.2


 


VOTING
AGREEMENT


 


To
induce the parties to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 22, 2020 (the “Purchase Agreement”), among
Resolate Blends, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Seller”), and the buyers named therein (the “Buyers”),
to enter into and perform the Purchase Agreement, the undersigned stockholder of the Seller whose name, address and signature
appear below (the “Undersigned”), hereby agrees to vote all voting securities of the Seller owned beneficially
and of record thereby (the “Subject Securities”) in favor of the Purchase Agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby.


 


If
the Seller shall in any manner split, subdivide or combine its any of its voting securities, the definition of Subject Securities
for purposes of this Voting Agreement shall be deemed amended such that this Voting Agreement be deemed to be an agreement to
vote the number of voting securities of the Seller owned beneficially and of record by the Undersigned following such stock split,
subdivision or combination that relate back to the original Subject Securities.


 


The
Undersigned hereby revokes any proxy heretofore given to vote with respect of the Subject Securities.


 


This
Voting Agreement shall be effective until June 30, 2020.


 


	 	 
	 	Name:	Geoffrey Selzer
	 	Address:	 


 


Dated:
May 22, 2020
#### Thompson *v.*McLean *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.*

June 20, 1890.)

1. Sale—Rights of Vendor.

Where a sale of goods is for cash, and after getting possession the vendee refuses to pay for a portion of the goods, the vendor may maintain replevin for such portion.

2. Liability of Agent for Tort.

One who wrongfully takes property as the agent of another is liable therefor.

Appeal from circuit court, Wyoming county.

Action by Charles D. Thompson against Alexander E. McLean, "and others. Judgment was given for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Argued before Dwight, P. J., and Macomber and Corbett, JJ.

*Fanning & Williams,*for appellants. *M. FI. & FI. M. Bartlett,*for respondent.

Corbett, J.

In February, 1889, William W. Durfee and the defendant Alexander E. McLean were engaged in buying apples for the defendant, Henry B. Slade, a fruit-dealer in the city of Rochester. On the 27th day of that month, Durfee made a contract, in behalf of the defendant Slade, for the purchase of a quantity of apples. The plaintiff’s contention was that he sold all his apples for $1.25 per barrel. The defendants claim that they bought first quality of apples, only, for that price, and that no price was agreed upon for second-class fruit, which amounted to from 40 to 50 barrels. In March the apples were delivered at the'Erie depot at Dale, in Wyoming county. The defendant paid $312.50 for 250 barrels at the alleged contract price for first-class apples. This left between 40 and 50 barrels claimed to be second class. The defendants refused to take these, and pay the price claimed by the plaintiff. He insisted upon the full price for all apples, and refused to allow any of them to be shipped until full payment. The defendants refused, and the plaintiff brought replevin. Issue was joined, and the action was tried in September, 1889, at a circuit in Warsaw, before the court and a jury. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants made a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Judgment was entered, and the defendants appealed to this court. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show the purchase on the terms alleged by him, while the defendants’ evidence tended to establish the reverse. The jury found for the plaintiff, the amount of the recovery being limited to the apples not paid for.

It is a familiar rule that, where the sale is for cash, the vendor has a right to the possession until payment. *Osborn*v. *Gantz,*60 N. Y. 541; *Russell*v. *Nicoll,*3 Wend. 112. A person wrongfully taking property is liable, although he acts as agent for another. *Latimer*v. *Wheeler,*3 Abb. Dec. 42; *Judson*v. *Cook,*11 Barb. 645. Ho exceptions were taken on the trial requiring comment. The evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury. Ho errors were committed requiring a new trial. Judgment and order must be affirmed.

All concur.
Exhibit 10.1

Sovereign Bank



August 10, 2012



Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc.

One Jake Brown Road

Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Attn: Eric Skolnik, Senior Vice President & CFO



RE:          Revolving Credit, Term Loan and Security Agreement
dated August 6, 2008, as amended, (“Credit Agreement”) by and among Sovereign Bank N.A., as a lender and as
agent for the lenders from time to time party thereto (“Lender”) and Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (“Blonder Tongue”), and its wholly owned subsidiary, R. L. Drake Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (“Drake” and, together with Blonder Tongue, collectively referred to herein as, “Borrowers”
and each, individually, a “Borrower”).



Gentlemen:



Reference is made to the Credit Agreement.
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to them in the Credit Agreement. You have
requested that we modify the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio Covenant applicable to the trailing 12-month period ended June 30, 2012,
as set forth in Section 6.5(a) of the Credit Agreement on a retroactive basis to and effective as of June 30, 2012. The Lender
is amendable to your request and as such it is agreed as follows:



Effective retroactively to and
effective as of June 30, 2012, the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio set forth in Section 6.5(a) of the Credit Agreement, applicable
only to the trailing 12\-month period ended June 30, 2012 is reduced from 1.50:1.00 to 1.30: 1.00. All subsequent testing periods
for the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio shall remain at 1.50:1.00.



All other terms, provisions and conditions
set forth in the Credit Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be modified hereby. Please confirm your agreement
to the foregoing retroactive amendment to the Credit Agreement by signing and returning a copy of this letter to the undersigned.



| | Very truly yours,   
| | --------------------
| |                     
| | SOVEREIGN BANK, N.A.
| |                     
| | By:                 
| |                     



|ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO           |                                            
|-------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY TO       |                                            
|JUNE 30, 2012.                   |                                            
|                                 |                                            
|BLONDER TONGUE LABORATORIES, INC |                                            
|                                 |                                            
|By:                              | /s/  Eric Skolnik,                         
|                                 | Eric Skolnik, Senior Vice President and CFO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Federico A. Peart, Appellant.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00374-CR

Felecia Rae Suetos

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. S-19-3111CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 10, 2021
# L_2009322EN.01003601.xml

| 9.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 322/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/36

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 1 December 2009

laying down the conditions of employment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

(2009/910/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 243 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance and of the President, Members and Registrar of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The Treaty of Lisbon institutes the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who, in accordance with Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, shall conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy, preside over the Foreign Affairs Council and be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Treaty of Lisbon institutes the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who, in accordance with Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union, shall conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy, preside over the Foreign Affairs Council and be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission.

| (2) | The conditions of employment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should be laid down, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The conditions of employment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should be laid down,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   The provisions of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 which apply to Members of the Commission, including those applicable to Vice-Presidents of the Commission, shall apply by analogy to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

2.   By derogation from Article 2(1) of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967, the basic monthly salary of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall be equal to the amount resulting from application of 130 % to the basic salary of an official of the European Union at grade 16 third step.

Article 2

This Decision shall be notified to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy by the President of the Council.

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2009.

For the Council

The President

B. ASK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 187, 8.8.1967, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

V. 

ALEXIS GUILLEN-ROBLES 

Defendant. 

JONES, J. 

Case No. 3: 15-CR-00044-JO-04 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Defendant, Alexis Guillen-Robles, filed a prose Motion for Sentencing Reduction 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). [# 860]. Defendant is seeking a two-level reduction 

of his sentence under Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines. For the following 

reason , I DENY Defendant's motion. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to Count One of the superseding indictment charging 

him with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute One Kilogram or 

more of Heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 1 [# 728]. The offense requires a 10-

year mandatory minimum sentence, which I imposed . Defendant's sentence was not 

based on the Sentencing Guidelines, but on the statutory mandatory minimum which is 

not subject to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States 

1 Defendant also pleaded guilty to Count 19, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering. 

1 Opinion and Order 
v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Miranda-Mendoza , 637 

Fed.Appx. 430 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, Defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction 

and his motion [#860] is DENIED. 

Dated this Li-t-day of April, 2019. 

2 Opinion and Order
DA 09-0528

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2010 MT 170N

LEN WALLACE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

NORMAN HAYES, MAGTRAC BOLUS PARTNERSHIP,

GERALD HILL, LUCILLE HILL, JACK HEYNEMAN,

RODNEY J. HAYES,

Defendants and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 01-0882

Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Arthur V. Wittich and Jason A. Delmue; Wittich Law Firm, P.C.,

Bozeman, Montana

For Appellees:

Tom Singer; Axilon Group, PLLC, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 23, 2010

Decided: August 4, 2010

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

August 4 2010
2

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

OperatingRules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandumdecision shall not be cited

as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court, and

its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in thisCourt’s

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 The District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, ordered

Appellant Len Wallace to pay approximately $2.5 million in attorney’sfeesto the Appellees

(Hays Defendants). Wallace appeals. We affirm.

¶3 The parties have been litigating this commercial dispute in various fora for nearly a

decade. Wallace v. Hayes (Wallace I), 2005 MT 253, ¶ 9, 329 Mont. 23, 124 P.3d 110;

Wallace v. Hayes (Wallace II), 2007 MT 194N, ¶ 3, 339 Mont. 536, 169 P.3d 406 (table).

Four times previously Wallace has appealed the case to this Court. Wallace I; Wallace II;

Wallace v. Hayes (Wallace III), 2008 MT 248, 344 Mont. 523, 191 P.3d 365; Wallace v.

Hayes (Wallace IV), 2008 MT 415N, 348 Mont. 371, 211 P.3d 204 (table). On his fifth

appeal Wallace now contends that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded by the District

Court is unsupported by the record.

¶4 We review a district court’s grant or denial of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion.

Kuhr v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 201, ¶ 14, 338 Mont. 402, 168 P.3d 615. Under this
3

deferential standard of review, we will only reverse a district court if it “acts arbitrarily,

without employment of conscientious judgment, or in excess of the bounds of reason.” Id.

¶5 We have decided to determine this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i)(3) of

our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, which provides for memorandum

opinions. It is manifest on the record before us that the District Court did not abuse its

discretion in this matter. We therefore affirm.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS