alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The HONORABLE HAROLD D. VIETOR, United States District Judge fo r 1 the Southern District of Iowa.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1759

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Wanda Grother, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 26, 1999 Filed: February 1, 1999

___________ Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Wand a Grother challenges the sentence imposed on her by the district court 1 following her

guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Upon the government’s motion for a downward depar ture under U.S. Sente ncing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (1998) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the distric t cour t granted a 20% departure from the bottom of the Guidelines range of 120-13 5 months, and sentenced Grother to 96 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised-2-

release. On appe al Grother argues only that the district court abused its discretion by gra nting no more than a 20% departure. However, we may not review the extent of a district court’s downward departure under either section 5K1. 1 or 3553(e). See United States v . Sharp , 931 F.2d 1310, 1311 (8th Cir. 1991); see also United States v
. Dutc her , 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993). Consistent with our prior order, we hav e reviewed the record f

or any nonfrivolous issues, and have found none. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph W. B., Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Corso, J.), rendered April 25, 1980, adjudicating him a youthful offender upon a finding that he had committed acts constituting assault in the second degree and resisting arrest, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the verdict *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
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
 Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Commodity Protection and Quality Research
                                    Water Management Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research People & Locations







Gabriella  Herrera
                        Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (559) 596-2934
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### Warren Couture et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

*777The original notice of claim served in the present case was patently defective since it failed to describe with sufficient particularity "the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; *see also, Levine v City of New York,*111 AD2d 785, 786; *Caselli v City of New York,*105 AD2d 251, 253). Although a court may grant a motion for leave to amend a notice of claim, it may do so only where two conditions have been satisfied: first, the mistake, omission, irregularity or defect in the notice must have been made in good faith, and second, it must appear that the public corporation has not been prejudiced thereby *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; *Mazza v City of New York,*112 AD2d 921; *Caselli v City of New York, supra,*at p 254; *Nouri v City of New York,*90 AD2d 745, 746).

In the present case, there is no allegation that the original notice was prepared in bad faith. However, the city was clearly prejudiced because the defect in the notice of claim deprived it of the opportunity to conduct the type of prompt and adequate investigation contemplated by General Municipal Law § 50-e *(see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 358; *Mazza v City of New York, supra).*Therefore, Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their notice of claim and denied the city’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### DUFFUS, Respondent, v. HOWARD FURNACE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by William Duffus against the Howard Furnace Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur. See 37 N. Y. Supp. 19, and 40 N. Y. Supp. 925.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1819 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1819

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exception for 
certain public-private research arrangements from the business use test 
          for purposes of determining private activity bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2015

 Mr. Lipinski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exception for 
certain public-private research arrangements from the business use test 
          for purposes of determining private activity bonds.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO BUSINESS USE TEST FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC-PRIVATE 
              RESEARCH ARRANGEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 141(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(10) Exception for certain research arrangements.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
                an issue if the proceeds of such issue are to be used 
                under an arrangement relating to basic research at a 
                facility--
                            ``(i) owned by a governmental unit or a 
                        501(c)(3) organization, and
                            ``(ii) the governmental unit or a 501(c)(3) 
                        organization enters into a bona fide, arm's-
                        length contractual arrangement with a person 
                        other than a governmental unit or a 501(c)(3) 
                        organization regarding the terms for sharing 
                        the economic benefits of any products resulting 
                        from basic research, including arrangements in 
                        which those economic terms (such as exclusive 
                        or non-exclusive licenses of intellectual 
                        property and licensing fees or royalty rates) 
                        are determined in advance at the time the 
                        parties enter into the contractual arrangement.
                    ``(B) Basic research.--For purposes of subparagraph 
                (A), the term `basic research' means any original 
                investigation for the advancement of scientific 
                knowledge not having a specific commercial 
                objective.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to research agreements entered into after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### SMALL, ET AL. v. HOWARD.

(Decided November 27, 1913.)

Appeal from Lowndes Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. L. D. Gardner.

J. M. Chilton, and W. P. McGaugh, for appelJaul.

Arrington & Houghton, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 21, 2011 

y1114 

Order 

 

November 21, 2011 

143599 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143599 

 COA: 297428 

Oakland CC: 2009-228689-FC 

RAPHAEL DARNELL MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 30, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Jesse S. Abbott, Respondent, v Margaret A. Abbott, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 511]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Berliner, J.), dated January 5, 2012, as, without a hearing, denied her motion for permission to relocate with the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant’s motion; in the interim, the children may remain in Florida with the defendant, on condition that she provide airline transportation for the subject children to Syracuse, New York, at her expense, for visitation with the plaintiff pursuant to the schedule set forth in the parties’ May 2011 stipulation.

*888A party seeking to modify an existing custody arrangement must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a change of circumstances such that a modification would be in the best interests of the subject children *(see Matter of Aronowich-Culhane v Fournier,*94 AD3d 1114 [2012]; *Matter of Sweetser v Willis,*91 AD3d 963 [2012]). When the modification requested is to relocate with the parties’ children, the request “ ‘must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the [children]. While the respective rights of the custodial and noncustodial parents are unquestionably significant factors that must be considered ... it is the rights and needs of the children that must be accorded the greatest weight’ ” *(Matter of McBryde v Bodden,*91 AD3d 781, 781-782 [2012], quoting *Matter of Tropea v Tropea,*87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; *see Matter of Hamed v Homed,*88 AD3d 791, 791-792 [2011]; *Matter of Vega v Pollack,*21 AD3d 495, 496-497 [2005]).

Here, the defendant established that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a hearing on her application to relocate to Florida with the subject children. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination on whether the relocation to Florida would be in the best interests of the children. In the interim, the children may remain in Florida with the defendant, on condition that she continues to provide airline transportation for the subject children to Syracuse, New York, at her expense, for visitation with the plaintiff pursuant to the schedule set forth in the parties’ May 2011 stipulation. Mastro, A.P.J., Angiolillo, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

NAMU INC., an Oregon 3:16-CV-00453-PK

Corporation, dba NAMU KOREAN

AND HAWAIIAN, and NAMU KILLER ORDER

KOREAN BBQ,

Plaintiff,

v. 

 

NAMU HAIGHT, LLC., a

Californian Limited Liability

Company, and DAVID LEE, an 

individual, 

 Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and

Recommendation (#41) on December 2, 2016, in which he recommends

this Court grant Defendants’ Motion (#18) to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction, grant Plaintiff’s Request (#32) for Judicial

Notice, and dismiss this matter without prejudice. The matter is

now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

1 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00453-PK Document 43 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and

Recommendation (#41). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

Motion (#18) to Dismiss, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request (#32) for

Judicial Notice, and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2017.

 s/ Anna J. Brown 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00453-PK Document 43 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Levine, Appellant.

Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      20,145,044
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,032,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,548
<INVENTORY>                                     67,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,607,619
<PP&E>                                      69,979,434
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,428,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             133,150,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,310,965
<BONDS>                                    130,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,082,984)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               133,150,043
<SALES>                                    120,177,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           120,177,060
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              101,245,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,848,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,605,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,478,131
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,478,131
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           (15,238,156)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,760,025)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Robinson, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.), rendered May 4, 1982, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On this appeal, the defendant raises a variety of grounds in support of his argument for reversal of the judgment of conviction. Only a few of his claims merit discussion.

The defendant’s argument that the indictment should be dismissed because of the People’s delay in presenting the case to the Grand Jury is without merit. The Grand Jury voted to indict the defendant less than four months after he allegedly shot the complainant. The delay in presentment was caused by the seriousness of the complainant’s injuries and was not prejudicial to the defendant. Under these circumstances, the preindictment delay does not warrant dismissal *(see, People v Bonsauger,*91 AD2d 1001). Nor was the defendant unduly prejudiced by the fact that the complainant’s testimony was presented to the Grand Jury in the form of a videotape, apparently with the consent of defense counsel. The Legislature’s subsequent enactment of CPL 190.32, which provides that the People may move ex parte for an order permitting the use in Grand Jury proceedings of videotaped testimony of an incapacitated witness, lends support to a finding that under *613certain circumstances, evidence in that form may be appropriate.

Also without merit is the defendant’s claim that the trial court committed reversible error when it directed him to answer the prosecutor’s questions. A defendant who voluntarily takes the stand in his own behalf “waives his 5th Amendment privilege and cannot refuse to answer questions regarding any matters relevant to the case” *(People v Bagby,*65 NY2d 410, 414).

Similarly, the defendant’s contention that the court improperly restricted the testimony of the defense witnesses is untenable. In order for evidence of prior violent acts of the victim to be admissible in support of a justification defense, the defendant must have been aware of the acts before he committed the crime *(see, e.g., People v Goetz,*68 NY2d 96; *People v Sellers,*113 AD2d 850). That is not the situation in this case.

Finally, the defendant’s adjudication as a second violent felony offender was proper *(see,*Penal Law §70.04; *People v Morse,*62 NY2d 205, *appeal dismissed sub nom. Vega v New York,*469 US 1186; *People v Towns,*109 AD2d 764). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gus T. Evans, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered October 3, 1984, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v Califor*
      *328
      *nia,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
Brown Trout - Incentivized Harvest Program

January 2021 update

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

Ken Hyde – Chief of Science and Resource Mngt. GLCA

Jeff Arnold – Fisheries Biologist GLCA
Funding

• 2020-2021: NPS funds = $160,000 including 

$30K specifically for Tribal Youth Program

• 2020-2021: BOR funds = $100,000

• 2022: NPS funds = $96,000

• 2023: NPS funds = $100,000

• 2024: NPS funds = $100,000

• In 2022-2024 we hope to use NPS funds as match and obtain AZGFD, BOR, or other partner funds to keep program at around $200K each year. GCC 

administrative fees are 20%.
Media Outreach by NPS and Partners

Sept-Nov with Media Outlets, Individual Angling Organizations, & Social Media
Opening Week Nov 11, 2020

Fish Processing Areas
Incentivized Harvest Registration Site

Brown Trout Registration Site

Navajo Bridge Visitor Center

Courtyard and Freezer for Fish Deposit
Harvested Brown Trout – November to December
Length Frequency of Harvested Brown Trout

Nov 11 – Dec 31, 2020

n = 72

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6-12 12-18 18-24 >24

Number of Harvested

Brwon Trout

Size Ringe (inches)
Reported River Reach for Harvested Brown Trout

Number of Fish

n = 61

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

A B C D E F G H

Reach ID
Notes for the Incentivized Harvest

Nov 11- Dec 31, 2020

31 anglers harvested BNT (72 fish)

72 x $25 = $1,800 paid out

Two Anglers submitted RBT (10 fish)

- From Paria Riffle Walk-in Fishery area

Three BNT - PIT tagged

One BNT - sonic tag

Harvested brown trout with sonic tag
Questions?