alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001016933
<NAME> R&G FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      31,989,944
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      33,232,809
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            33,633,178
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           109,496,947
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 81,814,425
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      43,169,697
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        42,345,537
<LOANS>                                    658,200,780
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,037,797,529
<DEPOSITS>                                 615,567,481
<SHORT-TERM>                               289,749,166
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         13,597,990
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,583
<OTHER-SE>                                 115,554,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             115,632,892
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             63,230,751
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           10,554,968
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            73,785,719
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          27,517,852
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          44,862,691
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       28,923,028
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                4,258,047
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             480,171
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             34,256,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,121,933
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  13,199,516
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,199,516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.25
<LOANS-NON>                                 18,730,692
<LOANS-PAST>                                   156,300
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             18,886,992
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,510,251
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                4,662,407
<RECOVERIES>                                   225,754
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,331,645
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         3,331,645
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Possible Experimental and 

Management Actions That 

May be Implemented in the 

Next 12 Months

October TWG Meeting

October 13-14, 2021

1
Objectives

•Introduce “menu” of LTEMP experiments for 

consideration in the next 12 months.

•Discussion of Process
LTEMP Process for Experiments

• Annual Reporting and TWG meetings

• Notification and Consultation to Tribes & PA Parties

• Implementation / Planning Team Recommendation

• DOI decision

3
Potential LTEMP Flow Experiments 

Water Year 2022

GCD Experimental Flow Duration Implementation 

Window

Fall HFE up to 96 hours October - November

Extended Duration Fall HFE 97- 192* or 97-250 hours*** October - November

Spring HFE∆ up to 96 hours March – April

Proactive Spring HFE∆◊ 24 hours** April – June

Trout Management Flows up to 3 cycles/month for 4 months May – August

Macroinvertebrate Flows target 2-3 replicates May – August

* First test not to exceed 192 hours

** First test 24 hours

*** After first test, up to 250 hours

∆ no Spring HFE in same WY as extended duration Fall HFE

◊ no proactive Spring HFE in same WY as sediment-driven Spring HFE
High Flow Experiment Timeline

Spring HFE, sediment triggered

• Sediment accounting: Dec 1 – June 30

• Implementation / Planning Team decision: late February

• Possible implementation: March-April

Spring HFE, proactive

• Equalization (GCD releases >= 10 maf)

• Planning Team: late February

• Possible implementation: April-June

Fall HFEs, sediment triggered

• Sediment accounting: July 1 – Nov 30

• Implementation / Planning Team: early September

• Possible implementation: October – November 
HFE Accounting & 

Implementation Windows
Trout Management Flows

TMFs are a special type of fluctuating flow designed 

to reduce the recruitment of trout by disadvantaging 

YOY trout
Macroinvertebrate Flows

“Bug Flows” Objective: Improve food base 

productivity and abundance or diversity of 

mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies

• “Give bugs the weekends 

off”

• Weekend stable low flows 

from May-August

• Eggs laid on weekends 

never dry

• Tech Team 2021 

considered a 4th year, 

needed more info.

• Upcoming synthesis 

report and external 

review.
Bug Flows: Next Steps

•GCMRC Bug Flows Synthesis & Peer Review.

• GCMRC Bug Flows Synthesis Report Draft:

• With peer review panel now.

• Distributing draft to TWG soon.

• Independent review panel– Oct start, Jan deliverable.

• Both the synthesis report and peer review report available 

at start of new year for consideration for the PI Team.

9
Summary and Budget 

Considerations

• LTEMP flow experiments and flow actions for WY21 

are complete.

• No spring or fall HFEs in FY21 

• Bug Flows not recommended in FY21 

• Completed Spring Disturbance Flow in FY21 

• Remote Sensing Overflight – Memorial Day Wknd FY21 

• No fall HFE in FY22 

•WY22 LTEMP Experiments: $350,000 in 

Experimental Fund available.

• Spring HFE accounting period begins: December 1

• Bug Flows – Report, peer review, and P/I calls to come.
Questions?
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *702James Johnson, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered March 24, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the opening remarks of counsel which, at worst, hinted that he had committed the uncharged crime of possession of a stolen vehicle at the time of his arrest. These comments were made in good faith as there existed support for them which would have been admissible as necessary background facts to establish a reason for the defendant’s arrest and the search which yielded the fruits of the charged crimes *(see, e.g., People v Montanez,*41 NY2d 53; *People v Carswell,*105 AD2d 844). Furthermore, any possible error was cured by the court’s remarks both prior to the openings and in its charge. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
ARKANSAS RIVER AT NEPESTA BRIDGE NEAR NEPESTA, COLatitude: 38.184Longitude: -104.173Elevation: 4385

ARKANSAS RIVER AT NEPESTA BRIDGE NEAR NEPESTA, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Glen Cove Site Page...



Glen Cove

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Saint Elmo Site Page...



Saint Elmo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hayden Pass Site Page...



Hayden Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Apishapa Site Page...



Apishapa

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Porphyry Creek Site Page...



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to South Colony Site Page...



South Colony

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Medano Pass Site Page...



Medano Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buckskin Joe Site Page...



Buckskin Joe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rough And Tumble Site Page...



Rough And Tumble
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stacy A. Kruse, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/  STACY A. KRUSE   **Stacy A. Kruse**   **Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**   Date: March 30, 2007
Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group

Meeting Notes

Monday, June 12, 2018

Attendees: Jed Parker, Ashley Nielsen, George Weekly, Heather Patno, Kevin Bestgen, Tom Chart, Don 

Anderson, Jerry Wilhite, Dave Speas

Baseflow discussion:

1. Larval drift sampling – Main spawning area, lower Yampa River. Early pikeminnow occupy in 

channel backwaters. Average first date of drift is first week in July. Drier and warmer June may 

time first presence in late-June and first few days of July.

2. Hold 2,200 at Jensen through September 30th. FGTWG on the 28th. Possible follow up in earlyJuly to potentially increase releases. 

3. Selective withdrawl structure overview given by Dave Speas.

4. Bad fishing – Anglers requesting use of SWS earlier than planned to increase temperatures. 

5. Dave Speas to explore the possibility of utilizing SWS to release warmer water earlier than what 

is currently in SOP.
#### BANKS v. HAYES.

(Decided June 13, 1912.)

Appeal from Bibb Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. B. M. Miller.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per cnriam.

Affirmed on certificate.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 17, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00662

- CV

Melissa FUENTES , In dividually, and as Next Friend of Victor Robert Fuentes and Isabella Elaine Fuentes, Minor Plaintiffs

,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

,

Appellee

From the 112th Judicial District Court, Sutton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5910 Honorable Pedr o Gomez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court signed a final order on May 18 , 201 6 . Appellant s timely filed a motion for new trial on June 7, 2016. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 306a

, 329b(a) ; Williams v. Flores , 88 S.W.3d 631, 632 (Tex. 2002)

. Appellant s ’ notice of appeal was due on August 16 , 201 6

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(a) ; Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc. , 10 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Tex. 2000)

. A motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due on August 31, 2016. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3; Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). See generally Verburgt
v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (“[A] motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant acting in good faith files a [notice of appeal] beyond the time allowed by Rule [26.1], but within the fifteen

- day period in which the appellant w ould be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule [26.3].” (emphasis added)).

Appellants filed an amended motion fo r new trial on August 11, 2016. See Moritz v.
Preiss , 121 S.W.3d 715, 720 (Tex. 2003) (“[A] n amended motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after the trial court signs a final judgment is untimely .”).

Appellant s ’ notice of appeal was filed on October 10, 2016.

W e ORDER Appellant s to SHOW CAUSE in writing within TEN DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.42.3(a); Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 617 (“[O] nce the period for granting a motion for extension of

time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court ’ s jur isdiction .”). If Appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be
dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).
All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of November, 2 016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE No. 3:16-cv-00438-JR

COMMISSION,

ORDER

Plaintiff,

v. 

 

AEQUITAS MANAGEMENT, LLC;

AEQUITAS HOLDINGS, LLC; 

AEQUITAS COMMERCIAL FINANCE, 

LLC; AEQUITAS CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT, INC.; AEQUITAS 

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC;

ROBERT J. JESENIK; BRIAN A. OLIVER;

and N. SCOTT GILLIS,

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [862] on 

November 10, 2020, in which she recommends that the Court grant the Receiver’s Motion for 

Order (1) Approving Compromises of Claims, (2) Approving and Authorizing Performance of 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-JR Document 866 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 2
2 - ORDER

Settlement Agreements, (3) Entering Claims Bars, and (4) Removing A Receivership Entity and 

An Extended Entity. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. 

Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of 

Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal 

principles de novo, the Court finds no error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [862]. 

Accordingly, the Receiver’s Motion for Order (1) Approving Compromises of Claims, (2) 

Approving and Authorizing Performance of Settlement Agreements, (3) Entering Claims Bars, 

and (4) Removing A Receivership Entity and An Extended Entity [852] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __________________________.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

December 11, 2020

Case 3:16-cv-00438-JR Document 866 Filed 12/11/20 Page 2 of 2
FY 06 Surplus Fund

FY 06 Surplus Fund

Proposed Process Proposed Process: (Role R

: (Role R

–Consult with BAHG–Consult with TWG chair–Consult with TWG (as neede–Consult with Sec Designee (
FY 06 Surplus Fundin

FY 06 Surplus Fundin

Available: Available: $188KOptions Options• Continued operation of Continued operation of Paria gage (41) gage (41)• Sediment Augmentation Study (25) Sediment Augmentation Study (25)• Trout suppression logistics (18) Trout suppression logistics (18)• Star Model Documentation (29) Star Model Documentation (29)• Warm Water Non Native Start up (50) Warm Water Non Native Start up (50)• HBC Genetics Management Plan (50) HBC Genetics Management Plan (50)• Other Warm Water monitoring and con

Other Warm Water monitoring and con

• Experimental fund (??) Experimental fund (??)
BLUE RIVER BELOW GREEN MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR, CO.Latitude: 39.88Longitude: -106.334Elevation: 7682.66

BLUE RIVER BELOW GREEN MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR, CO.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elliot Ridge Site Page...



Elliot Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Copper Mountain Site Page...



Copper Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grizzly Peak Site Page...



Grizzly Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hoosier Pass Site Page...



Hoosier Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Loveland Basin Site Page...



Loveland Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summit Ranch Site Page...



Summit Ranch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jackwhacker Gulch Site Page...



Jackwhacker Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Michigan Creek Site Page...



Michigan Creek
# C_2009263EN.01000101.xml

| 5.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5649 — RREEF FUND/ENDESA/UFG/SAGGAS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 263/01

On 21 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5649. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5649. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,553,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,054,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,597,302
<PP&E>                                      24,114,942
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,959,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,262,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,890,753
<BONDS>                                      4,822,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,339,329
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,327,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,262,710
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,627,748
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,388,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,248,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             354,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                689,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                   298,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            390,703
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   390,703
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### Coursey *et al.,*Appellants, v. Morton *et al.,*Respondents.

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

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent Sidney Smith, assignee, only.
#### Perry v. Ivy Coal & Coke Co.

■Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. A. A. Coleman.

*715Tillman & Camprell, for appellants.

John J. Moore, for appellees.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the Ivy Coal & Coke Company against A. J. and H. W. Perry. On the tidal of the (¡ase there ivas judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.

The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion by

Dowdell, J.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19529]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-92-000]


Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association v. PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C. and Duke Energy Progress, LLC; Notice of 
Withdrawal

September 3, 2021.
    On August 25, 2021, pursuant to Rule 216 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure,\1\ the Carolinas Clean Energy Business 
Association (CCEBA) filed a motion to withdraw its complaint against 
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP), 
requesting expedited treatment of the motion to withdraw. On August 31, 
2021, the Commission issued a notice shortening the comment period on 
the motion to withdraw to September 2, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CCEBA states that PJM and DEP have committed to work with CCEBA to 
consider the issues raised in the complaint through settlement and to 
file any resulting amendments to PJM and DEP's joint operating 
agreement with the Commission under section 205 of the Federal Power 
Act no later than mid-December 2021.\2\ CCEBA further states that such 
settlement will most expeditiously resolve the issues identified in the 
complaint, making withdrawal preferable. CCEBA asserts that its 
withdrawal is without prejudice to CCEBA's right to re-file the 
complaint. CCEBA also states that PJM and DEP have authorized CCEBA to 
state that they do not oppose withdrawal of the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CCEBA Motion to Withdraw at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that CCEBA's requested 
motion to withdraw is granted, effective as of the date of this notice.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19529 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P