alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ROSE MORRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

3:15-CV-01737-AC 

vs. 

CAROLYN COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

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

amount of$1,742.34 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 Plaintiff's 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. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

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

mailed to Plaintiff's 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. 

I I' /-/-?z _ _, ·._) f ( 

DATED this~ day of , ___ .£,(k±4·uLzd ;,2-0\6. //: . I . ./j. . / • i /( 

( ! \/ 1 I / f /", ,\ I i \ ,'b J,- _, _____ , __ _ - f·-';Jf-f ' '---~-.-.!-"' ! 

Johr\ V~\Acosta 

Unite~tates Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01737-AC Document 21 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.7

ASSIGNMENT AND AMENDMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS ASSIGNMENT AND AMENDMENT of employment agreement made as of the 12th
day of September 2000, by and between Stockwalk.com, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation (Stockwalk), Online Brokerage Solutions, Inc. (OBS) and Frank
H. Lallos (Lallos).

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, Stockwalk and Lallos entered into an Employment Agreement dated
as of February 7, 2000(Agreement); and

WHEREAS, Stockwalk has restructured its business so that its online
private label business will be run in OBS and Stockwalk and Lallos desire to
assign the Agreement to OBS and to otherwise clarify and amend the Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. For value received, the adequacy and receipt of which are hereby
acknowledged, Stockwalk hereby sells, conveys, assigns, transfers and delivers
to OBS, its successors and assigns, to have and to hold forever, all of
Stockwalks right, title and interest in, to and under the Agreement. Lallos
hereby consents to the assignment of the rights and obligations of Stockwalk
under the Agreement by OBS. In connection with the assignment of the Agreement
and effective the date of this Assignment and Amendment, Lallos resigns from
any and all offices held by him in Stockwalk, including but not limited to
President and Stockwalk hereby accepts such resignations. Subject to the terms
and conditions hereof, the Company shall employ Employee and Employee agrees to
be so employed in the capacity of President.

2. In connection with Stockwalks conveyance, assignment, transfer and delivery
of the Agreement, OBS agrees to assume and pay or perform, promptly as they
become due, the obligations of Stockwalk under the Agreement.

3. All references in the Agreement to Stockwalk shall be replaced with OBS to
reflect the Assignment of the Agreement.

4. Except as hereinabove supplemented and amended, all of the terms, covenants
and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.

| |                                  |                     
| | -------------------------------- | --------------------
| | Stockwalk.com, Inc.             
|
| | By: /s/ Philip T. Colton        
| |                                  | Its: General Counsel
|
| | Online Brokerage Solutions, Inc.
| | By: /s/ Philip T. Colton        
| |                                  | Its: General Counsel
|
| | /s/ Frank H. Lallos             
| |                                  | Frank H. Lallos     

Exhibit 10.7-1
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48304-48305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18641]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0601]


Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo 
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone located in federal 
regulations for the Cleveland National Airshow. This action is 
necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable 
waters during this event. During each enforcement period, no person or 
vessel may enter the safety zone without the permission of the Captain 
of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR Table 165.939(d)(2) will be enforced 
from 8:30 a.m. through 6 p.m. from September 2, 2021, through September 
6, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Natalie Smith, Waterways 
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; 
telephone 216-937-6004, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#397d0900146a747b14746a6c7a757c6f7c7578777d146e6e74794c4a5a5e17545055"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5612666f7b051b147b1b0503151a1300131a1718127b01011b1623253531783b3f3a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone 
listed in 33 CFR 165.939 Table (d)(2) for the Cleveland National 
Airshow daily from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. September 02, 2021, through 
September 06, 2021. This action is being taken to provide for the 
safety of life on navigable waterways during this multi-day event.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring 
within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited 
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or her designated 
representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may 
request permission from the

[[Page 48305]]

Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons 
granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions 
of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or her designated representative. 
While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum 
speed necessary to maintain a safe course. In addition to this 
notification of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard 
plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local 
Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: August 24, 2021.
Lexia M. Littlejohn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2021-18641 Filed 8-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant. 

3:15-cr-00438-JO 

ORDER 

This matter is before the comt on defendant's emergency motion to postpone self surrender 

pending designation of institution[# 176]. On October 22, 2018, I sentenced defendant to serve a 

term ofincarceration at an institution to be designated by the Bureau of Prisons. I ordered defendant 

to self surrender directly to the designated institution. Due to circumstances outside defendant's 

control, the Bureau of Prisons has not designated an appropriate. Accordingly, defendant's motion 

is GRANTED. 

The Marshal Service will alert the court and defendant at the time the Bureau of Prisons 

designates an institution. The comt will assign defendant's self surrender date at that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 1Go,-day ofNovember, 2018. 

I ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 178 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 1
----

| Name                                      | State      or other jurisdiction of organization | Percentage      of voting securities owned by its immediate parent at      September 30, 2009 |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Sevcon,      Inc.                         | Delaware                                         | 100%                                                                                          |
| Sevcon      Ltd.                          | United      Kingdom                              | 100%                                                                                          |
| Industrial      Capacitors (Wrexham) Ltd. | United      Kingdom                              | 100%      (A)                                                                                 |
| Sevcon      SAS                           | France                                           | 100%                                                                                          |
| Sevcon      Asia Limited                  | South      Korea                                 | 100%                                                                                          |
| Sevcon      Japan KK                      | Japan                                            | 100%                                                                                          |
| (A)      Owned by Sevcon Ltd.             |                                             |                                                                                          |

----
#### In the Matter of George Evangelista, Respondent. New York City Corporation Counsel, Appellant.

No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11160

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

James R. Markwith, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-1206

Before Stewart, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

James Markwith appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate 

release under the First Step Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The 

district court denied Markwith’s motion without the benefit of intervening 

Fifth Circuit authority. We therefore VACATE the district court’s order 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 2, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11160 Document: 00516077319 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2021
No. 20-11160

2

and REMAND for further consideration in light of United States v. Shkambi, 

993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case: 20-11160 Document: 00516077319 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2021
17-296-cv McDonough v. Smith

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECO ND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AF TER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROC EDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELEC TRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United St ates Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6 th day of November, two thousand nineteen.

PRESENT: D ENNIS J ACOBS , R EENA R AGGI , C HRISTOPHER F. D RONEY , Circuit Judges

.

________________________________________________

E DWARD G. M C D ONOUGH , Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v. No. 17-296-cv

Y OUEL S MITH , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS S PECIAL D ISTRICT A TTORNEY FOR THE C OUNTY OF R ENSSELAER , N EW Y ORK , AKA T REY S MITH , Defendant-Appellee

,

J OHN J. O GDEN , R ICHARD M C N ALLY J R ., K EVIN M C G RATH , A LAN R OBILLARD , C OUNTY OF R ENSSELAER , J OHN F. B ROWN , W ILLIAM A. M C I NERNEY , K EVIN F. O’M ALLEY , D ANIEL B. B ROWN , A NTHONY J. R ENNA , Defendants.

_______________________________________________2 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: B RIAN D. P REMO , Premo Law Firm PLLC, Albany, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: T HOMAS J. O’C ONNOR , Napierski, VanDenburgh, Napierski & O’Connor, LLP, Albany, NY.

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDE RED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and the cause be REMANDED to the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of New York for further proceedings consis tent with the opinion of th e Supreme Court of the United States.

This case is before us on remand fro m the Supreme Court, which reversed our decision in McDonough v. Smith , 898 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2018 ), and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. See McDonough v. Smith , 139 S. Ct. 2149, 204 L. Ed. 2d 506 (2019).

We now VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with th e opinion of the Supreme Court. 1

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

1 We express no view as to whether Smith has waived or forfeited the argument that absolute immunity bars McDonough’s fabricated-evidence claim. See Brown v. City of New York , 862 F.3d 182, 187-88 (2d Cir. 2017).
#### PEOPLE ex rel. POST v. BARRETT, et al., Police Commissioners.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Action by the people on the relation of Christopher Post against Clarence T. Barrett and others, commissioners of police of Richmond county.

No opinion. -Determination affirmed, with costs. All concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60366

Summary Calendar

Jose De Jesus Vargas Barajas, also known as Alberto 

Vargas-Barajas, also known as Jesus Vargas-Barajas, 

Petitioner,

v.

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 067 704

Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose De Jesus Vargas Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal 

of an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and cancellation of removal. Our 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60366 Document: 00516155637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2022
No. 20-60366

2

court has jurisdiction to review petitions challenging BIA decisions if filed 

within “30 days after the date of the final order of removal”. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(1) (requirements for review of orders of removal). 

The BIA issued its decision on 13 March 2020, but our court did not 

receive the petition for review until 7 May 2020. Barajas acknowledged the 

filing was not timely and points to the carrier as the problem. But, “filing is 

not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing”. 

FED. R. APP. P. 25(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added); see Navarro-Miranda v. 

Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding petition for review mailed 

within 30-day period but received after expiration of period was untimely and 

court lacked jurisdiction). 

DISMISSED.

Case: 20-60366 Document: 00516155637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2022
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41543

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NELSON NEHEMIAS MENDEZ-DE PAZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-829-1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nelson Nehemias 

Mendez-De Paz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendez-De Paz has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* 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

June 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41543 Document: 00514039944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
No. 15-41543

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41543 Document: 00514039944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 614 Filed 05/26/16 Page 8 of 8
Merrill Schneider, OSB #77336 

merrillschneider@schneiderlaw.com 

Schneider Kerr & Robichaux 

PO Box 14490 

Portland, Oregon 97293 

Phone: 503-255-9092 

Fax: 503-255-9145 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHERI SQUIER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

6:15-CV-01243-JE 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

The court finds and orders an attorney fee of $36,895.75 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

The attorney fee of $4,004.14 allowed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act will be refunded 

to Plaintiff upon counsel’s receipt of the allowed 406(b) fee awarded. 

Dated this _26th_ day of __March____, 2019. 

__/s/ John Jelderks______________ 

John Jelderks 

United States Magistrate Judge
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Range Management Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Comprehensive Publications
                    Research SummarySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Las Cruces, New Mexico Range Management Research Docs





- Landscape Toolbox
- Long Term Agricultural Research
- EcoTrends
- Long Term Ecological Research
- Ecological Site Descriptions
- Monitoring & Assessment
- Southwest Climate Hub
- Land Potential Knowledge System
- National Ecological Observatory Network
- JournalMap
- Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM)
- Data Catalogs

LIVESTOCK TREATMENTheadline bar Please choose the soil type on which you would likely train with livestock.  Livestock disturbance was tested by riders guiding horses back and forth across test sites ensuring that every point had been disturbed (either having been stepped on or had soil directly kicked onto it) at least once. The number of times the horses passed across each plot was standardized during treatment. Livestock training is generally low impact and can be repeated at relatively high frequency at appropriate sites.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell J. Reardon, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
          as of the dates presented and the consolidated results of operations
          of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: November 15, 2004

                                                         \s\ Russell J. Reardon
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Russell J. Reardon
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
     906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section
     1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as
     part of Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has
     been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
     furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.