alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Characterizing Se and Hg 

in the Colorado River Fo

Grand Canyon

Dave Walters

(US EPA, ORD, National Exposure Research Lab

and 

GCMRC Foodbase Research Te
Background

• Selenium is an essential nutrient• Narrow range between beneficial a

detrimental

• Selenium is present in coal and fue

many soils types, and some mineradeposits 

• Enters aquatic ecosystems through 

and anthropogenic processes

• Elevated levels of Se in waters can 

 Naturally in areas with Se-rich soils Due to irrigation practices During mining and smelting of ores ric During combustion of coal or fuel oil 
Background

• Selenium and Mercury bioma

aquatic food webs

• Toxicity to fishes and wildlife w

established

 High levels of Se in fishes can c

• Deformities• Reduced growth or reproductive o• Extirpation of species
Background

• Comprehensive ‘exposure character

Canyon is a logical next step

Se and Hg in fishes exceed toxicity

thresholds throughout CR basin But, no data 

Hinc

Hinck and others 2007
Research

• Objectives:

 Quantify extent of contamination Develop Se and Hg budgets  Export of Se and Hg to Riparian 

Ecosystems

• Plan:

 Samples will be collected on Ju

food base river trip

 US EPA will fund Se and Hg an

(~$40k)
Quantify Extent o

Contamination

• Se and Hg concentrations of all tro

levels will be determined at 6 sites Ferry, RM30, RM62, RM125, RM 1RM225)

• Compare Se and Hg concentration

inverts and fishes with toxicity thredetermine next steps:

 additional research  formal risk assessment no further action

• Toxicity thresholds already determ

many taxa present in the CRE
Se and Hg Budge

• Link Se and Hg data with 

quantitative food web to idand Hg flux across trophic 

This will yfood web Hg. Can Se and Hspecies/tathere.
Export of Se and Hg to R

Ecosystem

• Estimate numbers of emergen

insects from secondary produaquatic life stages

• Combine this with Se and Hg 

assess risk to terrestrial insec(i.e., birds and herps)

Emergea major transpoterrestrFrom: BaxtFreshwate
Conclusions

• Se and Hg in fishes excee

toxicity thresholds throughthe Colorado River Basin

• The exposure characteriza

we have planned for the GCanyon represents a logicstep

• US EPA is providing the fu
### The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 14, 2014

N o. 04

- 11

- 00156

- C R

Juan E. GUERRA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR13014

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellant ’ s appeal from his conviction was dismissed by this court on May 4, 2011

, because the

trial court’s certification of his right to appeal stated “this is a plea

- bargain case, and defendant has NO

right of appeal.” Our mandate issued on July 5, 2011 . On April 9, 2014, appellant filed a “M otion for

Intr a Loan Statement of Facts and Transcription

, ” in which appellant asks this court to forward him a

copy of the record for the purpose of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

A n indigent defendant ordinarily is not entitled to a free copy of his trial transcript for purpo ses of

filing a postconviction habeas application. In re Strickhausen , 994 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999 , orig. proceeding). A free record is available for that purpose only if the

defendant shows the habeas corpus application is no t frivolous and there is a specific need for the trial

records that are sought. In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, orig.

proceeding). Appellant has not made any such showing here , especially in view of the trial court’s

cert ification that he had no right to appeal. T herefore, appellant’s request is DENIED

.



### It is so ORDERED on the 14 th day of April , 201 4

.



## PER CURIA M

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting
 

April 19‐20, 2016
 

List of Attachments
 

No. Document Author/Presenter

1 Action Item Tracking Report Vineetha Kartha

2 Current Status of the Lees Ferry Fishery Bill Stewart

3 Excerpt from “The Big Red” book Gaylord Staveley

4 Basin Hydrology, Operations, and 2017 Hydrograph PPT Paul Davidson

5 Risk Assessment: Nonnative Fish Escapement through

Glen Canyon Dam PPT

David Ward

6 Updated Science Advisors Program Charter & Operating

Protocols, 2016 and PPT

David Braun

7 Abundance of Humpback Chub in the Western Grand

Canyon PPT

Kirk Young, Brian Healy, Scott

VanderKooi, Bill Stewart

8a Southwest Fisheries Tribal Commission Looking to the

Future PPT

Navajo Nation Department of Fish & Wildlife –

Management and Research Section PPT

Navajo Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Program PPT

The Zuni Pueblo Eagle Aviary PPT

Stuart Leon

Kim Yazzie

Glenn Selby

Nelson Luna

8b

8c

8d

9 TWG Ad Hoc Group List Vineetha Kartha

10a

10b

GCDAMP Triennial Budget Process, Draft Mar 8, 2016

Overview of Reclamation FY 15‐17 Budget PPT

Shane Capron

Katrina Grantz

10c GCMRC FY2017 Work Plan PPT Scott VanderKooi
#### North Shore Environmental Solutions, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, and Jaro Zitnansky, Appellant, v Allen K. Glass, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*CPLR 5602 [a]).
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CLAYTON LAMONT HOWARD,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 6:15-cv-1994-JR

v. ORDER

FOSTER GLASS, PEGGY GLASS,

ALEXANDER WHITE, KRISTIN MILLER,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation (#29), and the 

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

neither party filed objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 

840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate 

Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation (#29) is adopted. The United States’ motion to 

dismiss (#12) is GRANTED. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 

state law claims. This matter is remanded and any remaining motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2016.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-01994-JR Document 32 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
4.10


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	Principal
    Amount $US 102,569.00	Los
        Angeles, California

        September
        27, 2017



 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Imaging3,Inc, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
and having an office and principal place of business at 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 225, Los Angeles, California (hereinafter
called “Borrower”) promises to pay to the order of the Nicholas F. Coscia Defined Benefit Pension Plan, an individual
Plan whose address is P.O. Box 789, Cardiff, CA 92007 (the “Lender”), the principal amount of One Hundred Two Thousand
Five Hundred Sixty Nine Dollars ($ 102,569) on or before the earlier of (i) the date the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission declares that certain registration Statement filed by the Borrower on July 27, 2019, SEC File Number 333-232828 effective
or (ii) January 10, 2020 (the earlier of these two is the “Maturity Date”), unless otherwise extended in writing by
the signatories hereto.


 


1.
INTEREST RATE. The interest rate shall be 5% per annum from the date of this Note to the Maturity Date.


 


2.
COMMON STOCK GRANT. The borrower agrees to issue one million (915,795) shares of its no par value common stock (the “Shares”)
to the Lender the day the Note is funded. Within 30 days of receipt of the loan funds, the Company will instruct its transfer
agent, VStock Transfer to issue the shares to the Lender in book entry form.. The Company hereby expressly acknowledges that the
Lender has fully earned the Shares on the date the note is funded in consideration of making the unsecured loan.


 


3.
REPAYMENT METHOD. On the Maturity Date, without any further instruction from the Lender, the Company shall repay the Principal
Amount of the Note plus all accrued interest to the Lender by wiring the principal and interest to the Lender as instructed by
the Lender.


 


4.
GOVERNING LAW. This Note and its interpretation, construction, validity and enforceability shall be governed by the laws
of the State of California. No interpretation or construction shall, however, be adverse to or decided against the Lender with
respect to any unclear or ambiguous terms or provisions of this Note based on same having been drafted by the Lender’s counsel.


 


5.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Note and Exhibit A constitute the entire understanding between Borrower, and Lender and to the extent
that any writings not signed by Lender or oral statements or conversations at any time made or had shall be inconsistent with
the provisions of this Note and any other Loan Documents, the terms of this Note shall prevail.


 


PRIOR
TO SIGNING THIS NOTE, BORROWER HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS NOTE. BORROWER AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THIS NOTE
AND ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COMPLETED COPY OF THIS NOTE.


 


	 	Imaging3,
    Inc.
	 	
	 	






	 		By
    Bradley J. Yourist, CEO
#### DAVIES et al. v. CLARK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by William G. Davies and others against Francis A. Clark.

No opinion. The case of Halliburton v. Clapp, 149 N. Y. 183, 43 N. E. 558, holds that an appeal may be taken as matter of right. No leave is therefore necessary. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 825.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesus Castillo, Appellant.

— Ordered that two judgments of the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), both rendered September 23, 1982, are affirmed *(see, People v Harris,*103 AD2d 891). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Albert Citro, Respondent, v James Sullivan, as Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Appellant.

The petitioner’s final parole revocation hearing was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on September 25, 1985, a date within the statutorily prescribed 90-day period *(see,*Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]). Due to a scheduling conflict, the petitioner’s attorney failed to appear and did not make, prior to the scheduled hearing, an application to the hearing coordinator in the local area office which scheduled the hearing, to postpone the final hearing until the afternoon to enable her to attend the hearing, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Division of Parole *(see,*9 NYCRR 8005.17 [c] [1], [2]). After waiting a reasonable length of time for counsel to appear or explain her delay in appearance, the Hearing Officer adjourned the final hearing at 11:50 a.m. and rescheduled it for October 9, 1985.

There is nothing in the record to infer that the adjournment was for a purpose other than to afford the petitioner an opportunity to exercise his statutory right to counsel at the final parole revocation hearing *(see, People ex rel. Sincento v New York State Bd. of Parole,*78 AD2d 574). Under the circumstances, counsel’s failure to appear for petitioner’s final hearing on September 25, 1985, and any delay attributable to postponing the hearing until, and including, the first *available*hearing date is chargeable to the petitioner *(see,*9 NYCRR 8005.17 [c] [3]; *People ex rel. Sloan v New York State Bd. of*
      *766
      *Parole,*88 AD2d 666; *cf. People ex rel. Wims v Sullivan,*Sup Ct, Westchester County, Jan. 15, 1985, Martin, J.).

Nevertheless, "[i]n light of the manifest statutory purpose to require [final parole revocation] hearings to be conducted promptly, it is clearly imperative that the Board of Parole act energetically and scrupulously in such circumstances to insure that the hearing not be delayed for more than the time reasonably necessary to insure the alleged violator’s right to be present and to participate” with the assistance of counsel *(People ex rel. Burley v Warden,*70 AD2d 518, 518-519). Here, the record discloses that the Division of Parole’s calendar for revocation hearings was not completely booked for either October 2 or October 9. In the absence of a sufficient explanation for why the petitioner’s hearing could not have been rescheduled for October 2, we find that October 2 was the first available hearing date. Consequently, the period between October 3 and October 9 should be charged against the Division of Parole. In view of the fact that 86 days were chargeable to the Division of Parole as of September 25 and seven days encompassing October 3 through October 9 are also chargeable to the Division, the petitioner was not afforded a timely final parole revocation hearing. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Stout *et al.,*Appellants, *v.*Sherman, Respondent.

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

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Order filed, February 18, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00991-CR

____________

BRYAN O KOSSIE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1356861

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 03, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Judy Fox, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.1



EIGHTH AMENDING AGREEMENT 
(First Insurance Funding of Canada Inc.)
This Eighth Amending Agreement made as of May 20, 2020.
B E T W E E N:
FIRST INSURANCE FUNDING OF CANADA INC. 
 
(hereinafter referred to as the “Seller” or the “Servicer”)
- and -
CIBC MELLON TRUST COMPANY, in its capacity as trustee of PLAZA TRUST, 
 
(hereinafter referred to as the “Purchaser”)
RECITALS:
WHEREAS the parties hereto are parties to a receivables purchase agreement dated as of December 16, 2014 (as amended by amending agreements dated December 15, 2015, September 9, 2016, December 15, 2017, June 29, 2018, February 15, 2019, May 27, 2019 and January 15, 2020, the “RPA”);
AND WHEREAS the parties hereto have agreed to     further amend the RPA;
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Amendments


		
	(a)
	The definition of “Facility Limit” in Section 1.1 of the RPA is amended by deleting the reference to “$320,000,000” in such definition and replacing it with “$420,000,000”.


		
	2.
	General


		
	(a)
	This Eighth Amending Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein.


		
	(b)
	This Eighth Amending Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.  


		
	(c)
	This Eighth Amending Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which, when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.


[signature page follows]



IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Eighth Amending Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the date first above written.
	
				
	 
	 
	FIRST INSURANCE FUNDING OF CANADA INC. 



	By:
	/s/John Martin

	 
	Name:   John Martin

	 
	Title:   SVP Finance

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/Stuart Bruce

	 
	Name:   Stuart Bruce

	 
	Title:   CEO






	
				
	 
	 
	CIBC MELLON TRUST COMPANY, in its capacity as trustee of PLAZA TRUST, by its Financial Services Agent, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA



	By:
	/s/Nur Khan

	 
	Name:   Nur Khan

	 
	Title:   Authorized Signatory

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/Ian Benaiah

	 
	Name:   Ian Benaiah

	 
	Title:   Authorized Signatory
Technical Work Group (TWG) 1-Year Workplan for 2008-09 

December ’08 February ‘09 June September 

Attend Science Symposium 

Initial biennial budget review/rec. (B/CRAHG report) 

Final biennial budget review/rec. 

(B/CRAHG report) FWS updates GCM

TG meet as needed to inform Feb. TWG mtg. 

Technical review of projects (TG report) FWS updates Science Advisors annual report Tech

B/CRAHG review initial biennial budget in Jan. 

General Core monitoring plan (initial) HBC recovery progress (FWS) 2009 Temperature and Sediment Conditions 2008 

result

Budgetary considerations of a core monitoring program, initial GCMRC science updates GCMRC science updates AnnuHBC ASMR assessment update (Coggins) 

Fall Steady Flow/NSE study Plan initial review (GCMRC) 

Fall Steady Flow/NSE study Plan FINAL review (GCMRC) 

HBC survey update (Sponholtz) Budgetary considerations of a core monitoring program, FINAL? TWG operating procedures: FINAL review 

FWS updates TWG operating procedures: initial review Review/revise TWG workplan 

Annual take of HBC (FWS) LSSF final report? ## Extirpated species considerations LSSF draft report General Core monitoring plan (FINAL) GCMRC science updates ## Strategic Plan? Science Symposium wrap-up ## Management actions? NSE/FSF update of ’08 results Review/revise TWG workplan Revised MRP/SSP FINAL report ## Strategic Plan update, TWG 

role? Ask AMWG 

## Management actions, ask AMWG Roles Report update TWG operating procedures: initial discussion River stage and archaeological sites prepare final report to AMWG Review/revise TWG workplan 

* Items in italics are annually occurring at the same meeting. (continued on next page) 
* ## denotes actions which will require AMWG approval before the TWG could work on these, but planning requires that we 

impact of these items. 

* AMWG annual meetings: August and March 

* TG (Technical Group): December-February: attend GCMRC December meeting and then meet to evaluate technical merits 

report to TWG at February meeting. In 2008-09 this might be abbreviated, including attending the Science Symposium and GCMRC to discuss specific programs. This might include meetings at GCMRC in January and February, or conference/web 

* Web conferencing: TWG should consider the use of 1-2 web conferences a year between meetings to handle important busi

example, GCMRC might need initial review and comment on a project/plan in between meetings, a web conference is a perreport, discuss the proposal and provide input or approvals. Four hour duration or less for very specific topics. 

* BAHG: January: review of draft initial biennial budget with recommendation to TWG for February meeting. March-May: r

budget and workplan for recommendation to TWG at June meeting. 

* FWS updates: includes progress on meeting conservations measures (all currently applicable), Lower Colorado River Recov

Program (LCRIP), implementation of HBC Comprehensive Plan, Genetics Management Plan
#### STOLLENWERCK, ET AL. V. MARKS, ET AL.

(December 18, 1912.)

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Gaston Gunter.

Ball & Samford, for appellants. Marks & Sayre and J. M. Cpiilton, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10926

Conference Calendar

HAROLD E. WHITMORE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-839

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Harold E. Whitmore, federal prisoner # 24891-077, was

convicted in 1994 of drug-trafficking offenses and money

laundering, for which he received concurrent 240-month prison

terms. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, arguing that his

sentence was illegal because it was based on facts not submitted

to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Whitmore argues
No. 05-10926

-2-

that his claims should be allowed to proceed under the savings

clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Whitmore’s argument is unavailing

in light of this court’s decision in Padilla v. United States,

416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

KEVIN M. KEAY, 

No. 3:15-cv-00100-JE

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

BLUESTONE & HOCKLEY;

SUSAN HOWARD; and

CLIFF HOCKLEY,

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On January 28, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [5] in the above-captioned case, recommending that this action be 

dismissed without service of process, and that a judgment be entered dismissing Plaintiff’s 

complaint without prejudice. Neither party objected to the F&R. 

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00100-JE Document 8 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 2
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderk’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [5] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 24th day of February, 2015. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman ___ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00100-JE Document 8 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 2