alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Taking of Life Inventory

Technical Work Group Meeting

April 23-24, 2018

Michael Moran

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
Fish Takes

Species Total Mortalities for 2017

Black Bullhead 16

Bluehead Sucker 9

Bluegill sunfish 1

Brown Trout 872

Channel Catfish 35

Common Carp 4

Fathead Minnow 59

Flannelmouth Sucker 52

Green Sunfish 2016

Gizzard Shad 2

Humpback Chub #54

Plains Killifish 2

Rainbow Trout *29

Red Shiner 1

Speckled Dace 37

Smallmouth Bass 1

Striped Bass 2

Walleye 1

Total 3164

# - most under 80mm total length

* - > 150mm (does not include ≈ 200 < 80mm)

– required to be taken 

under NPS permit
Bug Takes

Bug takes have an uncertainty of ± 10% in terms of 

counts and ± 20% in terms of biomass

• Drift samples: ~580,000 individuals across 424 samples, total 

biomass ~ 8 g

• Light trap samples: ~550,000 individuals across 806 samples, 

total biomass ~ 50 g

• Sticky trap samples: ~44,000 individuals across 1284 samples, 

total biomass ~ 2 g

Total: ~1,170,000 invertebrate individuals, representing ~ 60 g of dry 

biomass

60 g is approximately the weight of a golf ball, or 1/4 of an 8oz steak, or 

20% the weight of a decent-sized trout

For FY 2017:
Plant Takes

Estimates of plant takes have no uncertainty

• Total from 2012-2017: 95 individuals from 48 different 

species

• Saltmash aster

• Prairie grass

• Lovegrass

• Spreadsheet of each plant take is available

• Date

• Species

• Site Name

• River Mile

most commonly removed species
Table 3 - Proposed Differences between Original AMWG 2004 Budget (July 2002) and 

November 2002 TWG meeting Presentation 

TABLE 2.2. FY-2004 Funding Sources 

 AMP Power Other Appropriations

SUMMARY BY PROJECT Revenues Funding Request 

I. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

 A. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WORK GROUP 

 1. Personnel Costs 

 2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

 3. Reclamation Travel 

 4. Facilitation Contract 

 5. Other 

B. TECHNICAL WORK GROUP 

 1. Personnel Costs 

 2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

 3. Reclamation Travel 

 4. TWG Chair Reimbursement 

 5. Other 

C. COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS 

D. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 

II. TRIBAL CONSULTATION 

A. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH TRIBES 

 1. Hopi Tribe 

 2. Hualapai Tribe 

 3. Navajo Nation 

 4. Pueblo of Zuni 

 5. Southern Paiute 

B. RIVER TRIP LOGISTICS COSTS TO GCMRC 

 1. Hopi Tribe 

 2. Hualapai Tribe 

 3. Navajo Nation 

 4. Pueblo of Zuni 

 5. Southern Paiute 

III. PROGRAMMATIC AGMT. FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES 

A. WORK PLAN ACTIVITIES 

 1. Completion of HPP 

 2. Reclamation Administration 

 3. Treatment & Monitoring Preparation Plan & Implementation 

IV. EXPERIMENTAL FLOW FUND +290,155 +685,000

 ADMINISTRATIVE SUBTOTAL +290,155 +685,000

 

I. SCIENCE PROJECTS 

A. TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITIES 

 1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring 

 2. Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring 

 3. New Research in Terrestrial Ecosystems 

 4. Mapping Holocene Deposits -112,850 

 5. Cultural Data Base Plan 

 6. Kanab Ambersnail Taxonomy -100,000

 B. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITIES 

 1. Aquatic Foodbase - External 

 2. Aquatic Foodbase - In House 

 3. Status and Trends of Downstream Fish 

 4. Status and Trends of the Lee's Ferry Trout Fishery 

 5. Integrated Water Quality Monitoring – Downstream 

 6. Integrated Water Quality Monitoring - Lake Powell 

 7. Native & Non-Native Fish Species 

 8. Captive Breeding Program -50,000 -100,000

 C. INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITIES 

 1. Fine-Grained Sediment Storage -15,000

 2. Streamflow and Fine-Sediment Transport -95,000
 3. Coarse-Grained Sediment Inputs 

 4. Sediment Transport Modeling 

 5. Control Network -9,920 

 6. Channel Mapping -49,500 

 7. LCR Integrated Studies -200,000

 D. OTHER SCIENCE ACTIVITIES 

 1. Unsolicited Proposals -18,880 

 Adopt-a-Beach 

 2. AMWG/TWG Requests -34,155 

 3. In-House Research 

 4. Tribal Outreach -14,850 

 5. Public Outreach Involvement Plan Implementation 

 6. Cultural Resource Synthesis & Status Report 

 7. Oral Traditions 

II. ADMINISTRATIVE & TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES 

 E. ADMINISTRATIVE & MANAGEMENT 

 1. Administrative Operations 

 2. Program Planning & Management 

 3. AMWG/TWG Participation 

 4. Independent Reviews 

 F. TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES 

 1. Geographic Information Systems 

 2. Data Base Management 

 3. Library Operations -25,000

 4. Survey Operations 

 5. Decision Support System -150,000

 6. Systems Administration 

 7. Aerial Photography (previously in Remote Sensing) 

 8. Logistics (Distributed to Projects) 

 GCMRC SUBTOTAL -290,155 -685,000

 TOTAL 0 0

TOTAL OF ALL SOURCES 0
Ecological Significance of 

Diminished Spring 

Freshets

National Water-Quality Assessment

US Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
USGS Circular 1461
97 130

Agriculture

Atmospheric deposition

Unknown

Streamflow Modification

Urban Runoff

Stream impairment attributed to modified flows

SOURCES OF STREAM IMPAIRMENT:

As Summarized by the States

Miles threatened or impaired (1000s)

0 32 65

SOURCE: http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.control
Streamflow 

alteration
Streamflow 

alteration

Departure from natural

Probability of impairment *
USGS Gages in Hydrologically “Least Disturbed” Watersheds
climate

topography

soils

geology

magnitude

duration

etc.

climate

topography

soils

geology

mean June flow

magnitude

duration

etc.

Example with June mean flow

climate

topography

soils

geology

Expected

Observed Natural

O mean June flow

100s reference sites

model

model

reference

/ E
Probability of impairment *

Departure from natural

Streamflow 

alteration
NRSA / NAWQA bioassessment data 

linked to USGS gages

> 700 gaged 

sites
CONUS Scale

Prob. biological impairment (logit / 2)

Spring maximum flow (observed / natural)

model uncertainty





Natural Occurrence of Annual Maximum Flows

Spring

Summer

Winter

Fall
winter spring summer fall

streamflow

water temperature
0

100

200

300

400

Spring Summer Fall Winter

No. of taxa

Vieira et al. 2006

North American Aquatic Insect Emergence
# C_2010007EN.01000301.xml

| 13.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5659 — Daimler AG/IPIC/Brawn GP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 7/02

On 23 December 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 32009M5659. 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 32009M5659. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10976

EARL RUSSELL BEHRINGER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,

Texas Department of

Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

February 5, 1996

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Earl Russell Behringer seeks a stay of his execution scheduled

for February 15, 1996, and a certificate of probable cause to allow

his appeal from a denial of his appli cation for a writ of habeas

corpus by the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas. We deny the request for stay of execution and

certificate of probable cause.

This is Behringer ’s first federal habeas petition. He

asserted five claims in his petition to the United States District

Court. Our question is whether Behringer has made a substantial2

showing of the denial of a federal right in any of these five

claims:

(a) Whether Behringer was denied effective assistance

of counsel, his right to a trial by jury, and due

process by the trial court’s sua sponte excusal of

veniremembers David Wayne Wright, Doris Odle

Simmons, and Irma K. Warters in the absence of

Behringer and his counsel.

(b) Whether Behringer was denied due process of law and

subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the

jury’s affirmative answer to special issue two

based on insufficient evidence.

(c) Whether Texas’ statutory scheme requiring direct

appeal of death penalty cases to the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals denied Behringer due process of

law and equal protection under the law.

(d) Whether the Texas death penalty scheme denied

Behringer due process of law and imposed cruel and

unusual punishment by preventing Behringer from

informing the jury of the parole implications of a

life sentence while authorizing a jury instruction

not to consider parole eligibility in deciding the

answer to special issue two.

(e) Whether the Texas death penalty scheme denied

Behringer due process of law and imposed cruel and

unusual punishment by simultaneously restricting

the jury’s discretion to impose th e death penalty

while allowing the jury unlimited discretion to

consider mitigating evidence.

The United States District Court, Judge John McBryde, filed a

detailed Memorandum and Order on October 2, 1995, denying the

petition for writ of habeas corpus and vacating a stay of

execution. The district court granted leave to appeal i n forma

pauperis

, but den ied petitioner’s application for certificate of

probable cause. The district court rejected each of these claims.

We have reviewed the district court’s detailed Order and considered

the briefs and record before us. We reach the same conclusion as3

the district court for essentially the reasons stated in its order

of October 2. The details of the crime and the treatment of the

claims are set out in the Order, and we will not restate them.

The application for Stay of Execution and Certificate of

Probable Cause are DENIED.
Spring Disturbance Flow--Initial Reports 

from the Field

Ted Kennedy, US Geological Survey, Southwest Biological 

Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Project O.2-Sediment Project O.3-Aeolian

Project O.4-Vegetation

Project E-Nutrients

Project O.1 Project O.1-Food base -Foodbase

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Low Flow River Trip-March 10-23

Lots of bad weather

Photo matching Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Fish stranding study

Scouting/Different runs Information exchange
Grand Canyon Gage

8 ft

Stage

Discharge

Warming

Temperature

Suspended Sediment

Clear Water

https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/station/GCDAMP/09402500
Benthic sampling from RM138-224

Hydropsychids (Fall Cyn)

~0 abundance pre-2018

-Benthic sampling showed Hydropsychid’s abundant 

starting at Parashant

-Benthic samples will be compared to historic benthic data

Bottom line: Light traps +/- reliable indicator of benthic 

invertebrate

Map courtesy of Anya Metcalfe, USGS,

Unpublished data subject to change, do not cite
Fish Sampling

-Small numbers (<5 fish per pool, often no fish caught)

-Stranded fish usually small (<30 mm TL) 

-More non-native than natives

-Species captured:

-Fathead minnow

-Plains killifish

-Speckled dace

-Flannelmouth sucker

-Only 1 large fish (FMS; 250mm) observed 

dead via stranding at RM 208 camp.

-No humpback chub found in isolated pools

Bottom line: No evidence of wide-spread stranding
Low Flow: Tool for Ecological Disturbance

Benthic habitats were 

disturbed during low flow

https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/station/GCDAMP/09402500
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Henry Dabbs, Appellant.

*593We have considered the issues raised by the defendant and find that they are either unpreserved or do not require reversal. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# C_2009315EN.01000101.xml

| 23.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5720 — BAYERNLB/LBLUX)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 315/01

On 16 December 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 German 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 32009M5720. 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 32009M5720. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Order filed August 23, 2013

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00640-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.T.R. AND D.D.R., JR., Children

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-04492J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the 

termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. Appeals in parental 

termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition 

within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 

6.2(a). 

The notice of appeal was filed July 23, 2013. The reporter’s record was filed 

August 1, 2013, and the clerk’s record was filed August 2, 2013. Appellant’s brief 

was due August 22, 2013, but it has not been filed. According to our records, 

appellant, C.R.A.J. aka C.R.J., is represented by appointed counsel, Katie Flynn.
2

Unless appellant files a brief with the clerk of this court within 10 days of 

the date of this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Thomas C.K. Yuen,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 22, 2007 | By:   | /s/ THOMAS C.K. YUEN                                 |
|----------------------------|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |            | Thomas C.K. Yuen                                     |
|                       | * *        | *Chairman  of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |
|                       | * *        | *(Principal  Executive Officer)*                     |

 

----
# C_2009068EN.01003901.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/39

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5456 — Antin Infrastructure Partners/BBEIF/BBI EUROPE/Euroports)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 68/08)

On 16 March 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32009M5456. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5456. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

MARTHA LAURA AVILES-VALDEZ, No. 2:16-CV-00332-SU 

an individual; CAROLYN MASON, an

individual; and JUAN VALDEZ, an ORDER

individual,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

 

UMATILLA COUNTY, a municipal

corporation,

 Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [73] on February 8, 

2019 in which she recommends the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [42] 

and dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claims with prejudice. Defendant filed timely objections to the 
2 - ORDER

Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

Defendant filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. 

Def.’s Obj., ECF 78. In these objections, Defendant raised an issue that was not briefed before 

Judge Sullivan—whether Plaintiffs are barred from recovering damages that occurred after 

December 3, 2015. The Court declines to address this issue for the first time on review. See 

Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745–46 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s holding that a

district court must consider new arguments raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate 

judge’s F&R); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts have 

discretion to consider new evidence raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate 

judge’s F&R); Olmos v. Ryan, No. CV–11–00344–PHX–GMS, 2013 WL 3199831, at *8 (D. 

Ariz. June 24, 2013) (“Generally, a district court need not consider new arguments raised for the 

first time in objections to an R & R.”)

The Court has carefully considered the remaining objections and concludes they do not 

provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent 

portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.
3 - ORDER

CONCLUSION

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation [73]. 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [42] is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are 

DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of ____________________, 2019. 

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 4, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-13576 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-01772-TWT

AFC ENTERPRISES, INC.,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

THG RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC,

WOODROW A. HALL,

llllllllllllllllllll l Defendants - Appellants.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Georgia

 ________________________

(March 4, 2011)

Before WILSON, FAY and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Appellant operated a Popeyes Chicken and Biscuits restaurant pursuant to a

franchise agreement with the appellee. As a result of alleged defaults by

appellants, appellee successfully obtained a TRO followed by a preliminary

injunction. In granting both the district court did not require a bond. The court

stated: “There is no need for the imposition of a preliminary injunction bond in

this case. AFC’s annual revenues exceed $100 million, and it is able to pay any

judgment . . . In the event that this finding is reversed, the Court finds a bond of

$25,000 would be reasonable.” (D.E. 22 at 5).

Appellant does not contest these findings by the district court but argues

that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) a bond is mandatory. Such is simply not the

case. Under our existing precedent, it is within the discretion of the court to set

the amount of the bond or to require “no security at all.” Bellsouth Telecomms.,

Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 971 (11th

Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of
Intelligroup, Inc, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Vikram Gulati, Chief Executive 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, and to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




(1)
            
            The Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d);)
      and(2)
            
            The information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.


DATE: March 29, 2010
            By: /s/
            VIKRAM
  GULATIVikram GulatiChief Executive
  Officer


---