alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Glen Canyon Reach – 

Glen Canyon NRA 

Update 

• Slough Chemical

Treatment 
Glen Canyon Reach – Glen Canyon NRA 

Lees Ferry 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Slough 
Number Times Sampled 

Sample Trips / Reach 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

A B C D E F G H 

Reach 

Electrofishing 

Netting(Slough) 

Chemical Treatment 

GLCA Sampling 2023 
 

 

Chemical Treatment 

August 26-28 

Species 

Carp 

Lower Slough 

Fish Count 

2855 

Upper Slough 

Fish Count 

292 

Fish Count 

3147 

Green Sunfish 821 652 1473 

Bluegill 4 40 44 

Smallmouth Bass 114 34 148 

Lepomis sp 3 2 5 

Flannelmouth Sucker 12 0 12 

Rainbow Trout 114 0 114 

Brown Trout 4 2 6 

* Two additional buckets of small fish were not counted in this total (CRP, GSF, SMB) 

** 63 flannelmouth suckers were removed from the area prior to treatment.
#### McGraw, *et al. v.*Tillery, *et al.*

*Petition for Intervention.*

(Decided June 29, 1912.

59 South. 567.)

*Appeal and Error; Rcvieio; Theory Below.*— Where the petition did not count on that theory the erroneous overruling of demurrers to petition for intervention cannot be sustained on the theory that petitioners were entitled to a reasonable fee for service rendered respondent under section 3010, Code 1907.

Appeal from Lee Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. W. F. Dickinson, Special Judge.

For statement of tbe facts and contents of tbe petition see 176 Ala. 451; 58 South. 421.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Barnes &. Denson, for appellant. No brief reached the Reporter.

Stallings & Drennen, for appellee. No brief reached the Reporter.

ANDERSON, J.

The appellees, by their petition, sought the enforcement of their contract; and, whether it was or was not binding upon these appellants, they •could not enforce same, except by an original or supplemental bill. — 3 Mayfield’s Digest, pp. 316, 317. The trial court erred in not sustaining the respondents’ demurrer to the petition.

It may be conceded that the apellants were entitled to a reasonable fee, to be taxed as cost against the respondents, if legally employed to represent them under the terms of section 3010 of the Code of 1907; but the petition did not proceed upon this theory and the trial *254court cannot be justified upon its finding, or the respondents concluded thereby, because the appellants Avere entitled to a fee under a statute which they were not attempting to invoke. After the court improperly overruled the respondents’ demurrer, they were not bound by the proof as to the reasonableness of the fee to Avhich the petitioners may have been entitled, under the statute, as their petition did not invoke the statute, but relied upon the contract alone, and sought the amount fixed by same.

The decree of the county court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Shaw, Appellant.

The defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in receiving into evidence eight color photographs depicting the injuries inflicted upon the complainant during the armed robbery of her home, which included several lacerations and bruises, is unpersuasive. The photographs were probative on the issue of an element of several of the crimes charged, namely, that the defendant caused physical injury to the victim *(see,*Penal Law § 120.05 [1]; § 140.30 [2]; § 160.10 [2] [a]), and thus were properly admissible *(see, People v Pobliner,*32 NY2d 356, *cert denied*416 US 905; *People v Sims,*110 AD2d 214), particularly since the 71-year-old complainant could neither describe the manner in which, nor the time at which, the injuries were inflicted.

We now turn to the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed on him was excessive insofar as it reflected the Trial Judge’s vindictiveness toward him for exercising his right to a jury trial rather than accepting a plea bargain. It is fundamental that retaliation or vindictiveness may not play a role in sentencing a convicted defendant who had elected to proceed to trial rather than plead guilty pursuant to a negotiated bargain *(see, Corbitt v New Jersey,*439 US 212; *People v Patterson*106 AD2d 520). A review of the record shows no retaliation or vindictiveness against the defendant for electing to proceed to trial. Quite to the contrary, the sentencing court properly considered the defendant’s lack of remorse and the relentless, repetitive and heinous criminal behavior in which he engaged when imposing sentence *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

*687Finally, we note that pursuant to Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (c) (iii), the aggregate maximum term of the four consecutive sentences imposed upon the defendant, which equals 100 years, must be "deemed” to be 50 years. The statute does not, however, require this court to modify or vacate the underlying sentences but merely requires that the Department of Correctional Services calculate the defendant’s maximum length of imprisonment consistent with the applicable limitation *(see, People v Moore,*61 NY2d 575). Thus, the sentence imposed shall remain undisturbed.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for our review and, in any event, without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





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 Annual Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Terry Copeland, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:




(1) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/  Terry
Copeland


Terry
Copeland


President


March 14,
2008
#### State of Connecticut *v.*James Haskins

*William F. Gallagher,*special assistant state’s attorney, in support of the motion.

*John B. Williams,*special public defender, in opposition.

Submitted April 16

decided April 23, 1975

The state’s motion to expedite the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County pursuant to § 762 of the Practice Book, as amended, is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion after the record has been filed.
#### EAST LAKE CHUTE, ET AL. v. LATADY.

(Decided November 21, 1913.)

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Benners.

A. G. & E. D. Smith, for appellant.

Carmichael & Winn, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1


               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                 April 15, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, The Majestic Star
Casino, LLC has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP
("Andersen") stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability at foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

                                                  Very truly yours,


                                                  /s/ Robert G. Novak
                                                  Controller
                                                  Buffington Harbor Riverboats

                                      E-6
<PAGE>

                                                                        EX-10.27


                          Severance Payment Agreement

This Agreement is entered into this 29th day of January, 2000, but effective as
of the 20th day of January, 2000 by and between Sunterra Corporation, a Maryland
Corporation (hereinafter "Sunterra") and L. Steven Miller (hereinafter
"Miller").

     WHEREAS, Sunterra and Miller have previously entered into that certain
Employment Agreement dated as of September 11, 1998 (hereinafter "Employment
Agreement") which provided for employment of Miller by Sunterra and terms
related to the termination of that employment, and

     WHEREAS, Sunterra and Miller have mutually agreed to the cessation, without
cause, of Miller's full time employment by Sunterra, and

     WHEREAS, Sunterra and Miller have mutually agreed that as a result of such
cessation, Miller shall be paid certain severance payments;

     NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained as
well as in full satisfaction of Sunterra's severance obligations pursuant to the
Employment Agreement, both Miller and Sunterra agree as follows:

1)  Miller and Sunterra each agree to enter into that certain Consulting
    Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

2)  Sunterra shall pay to Miller the sum of $876,000 payable in 24 equal monthly
    installments of $36,500 commencing February 29, 2000 and continuing on the
    last day of each month thereafter until paid in full (the "Severance
    Payments").

3)  Any violation or breach of the Consulting Agreement shall not affect
    Sunterra's obligation to make all of the Severance Payments due hereunder.

4)  In the event that Miller should exercise his right to revoke the General
    Release and Waiver executed by Miller in favor of Sunterra dated January 28,
    2000, then this Agreement shall be revoked as of its effective date as if
    never entered into between the parties without any liability for any accrued
    payment.

5)  In the event of any dispute related to this Agreement, venue for such action
    shall be in Orange County, Florida.

Agreed to by and between the parties hereto as of the date set forth above.

Sunterra Corporation

By:   /s/ Stan Chapman                  /s/ L. Steven Miller
   ---------------------------        -----------------------------
As its: CO. CHAIRMAN                  L. Steven Miller
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS OF NUTRITION MEDICAL, INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND 1996, AND THE
RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 AND 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,836,910
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,084,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                    33,393
<INVENTORY>                                  1,972,781
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,006,318
<PP&E>                                       1,307,922
<DEPRECIATION>                                 239,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,333,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,052,576
<BONDS>                                      1,736,138
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,202,467
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,657,622)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,333,559
<SALES>                                      4,478,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,478,496
<CGS>                                        3,404,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,404,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,408,267
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             142,388
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,367,639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,367,639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,367,639)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. HORACE ARCHER, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 300 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 8th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Twana Smith, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712]

— An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nunez, J.), rendered on or about September 9, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Tramaine L. STITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7912.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2007.

Decided: June 5, 2007.

Tramaine L. Stith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*374PER CURIAM:

Tramaine L. Stith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Southern Paiute Vegetation and 

Cultural Resource Monitoring 

Program

Charley Bulletts

Southern Paiute Consortium
Monitoring Program

• History

• Process

• Schedule

Site 2018 2019 2020 2021

South Canyon Beach, Beach, Beach, Beach, Cultural

Archaeology Cultural* Archaeology

Nankoweap Archaeology Cultural Archaeology Cultural

Lava/Chuar Archaeology Archaeology

Tanner Archaeology Archaeology

Bedrock Cultural

Deer Creek Beach, Beach, Beach, Beach, 

Archaeology, Archaeology, Archaeology, Archaeology, 

Plants Plants Plants Plants

Kanab Creek Beach Beach Beach Beach

Ledges Archaeology, Archaeology, 

Spring Spring

Vulcan’s Anvil Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural

Whitmore Archaeology Archaeology Archaeology Archaeology

Pre-Parashant Archaeology

Ompi Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural

Spring Canyon Archaeology Cultural Archaeology Cultural

Indian Canyon Cultural Archaeology Cultural Archaeology

Granite Park Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural

Pumpkin Spring, Cultural Spring, Cultural Spring, Cultural Spring, Cultural

Spring
8.20 (M)

6/18

The primary trail is observed cutting through the center of the photo. In the photo from 

2017 two trails can be observed, and in the photo from 2018 trailing has become deeper 

and more pronounced, indicated by the arrows. 
Trailing at the Tanner site. Photos from 2017 (left), and 2018 (right) illustrate 

ongoing and extensive trailing across the hillside. 
The two to three inch “T” etched into a wall in the central part of the Deer Creek Narrows. 
DStretch Photo Enhancement

Whitmore site, taken in 2018. On the right, the same photo after the DStretch

photo enhancement software was applied
EXHIBIT 32

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                          CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF US
                             GLOBAL NANOSPACE, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section.1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      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) each of the
undersigned officers of US Global Nanospace, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

            (a) The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
December 31, 2004 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (b) Information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  February 25, 2005


/s/ John Robinson
------------------------
John Robinson,
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Julie Seaman
------------------------
Julie Seaman,
Chief Financial Officer
# L_2009112EN.01000101.xml

| 6.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 365/2009

of 5 May 2009

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 May 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 May 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | JO | 88,9 |
| MA | 77,8 |
| TN | 115,0 |
| TR | 146,3 |
| ZZ | 107,0 |
| 0707 00 05 | JO | 155,5 |
| MA | 32,7 |
| TR | 137,1 |
| ZZ | 108,4 |
| 0709 90 70 | TR | 118,7 |
| ZZ | 118,7 |
| 0805 10 20 | EG | 44,0 |
| IL | 58,8 |
| MA | 39,5 |
| TN | 49,5 |
| TR | 101,4 |
| US | 51,9 |
| ZZ | 57,5 |
| 0805 50 10 | TR | 49,0 |
| ZA | 54,3 |
| ZZ | 51,7 |
| 0808 10 80 | AR | 81,4 |
| BR | 73,1 |
| CA | 114,7 |
| CL | 81,5 |
| CN | 71,2 |
| MK | 33,9 |
| NZ | 105,7 |
| US | 124,1 |
| UY | 70,5 |
| ZA | 80,5 |
| ZZ | 83,7 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

JO

88,9

MA

77,8

TN

115,0

TR

146,3

ZZ

107,0

0707 00 05

JO

155,5

MA

32,7

TR

137,1

ZZ

108,4

0709 90 70

TR

118,7

ZZ

118,7

0805 10 20

EG

44,0

IL

58,8

MA

39,5

TN

49,5

TR

101,4

US

51,9

ZZ

57,5

0805 50 10

TR

49,0

ZA

54,3

ZZ

51,7

0808 10 80

AR

81,4

BR

73,1

CA

114,7

CL

81,5

CN

71,2

MK

33,9

NZ

105,7

US

124,1

UY

70,5

ZA

80,5

ZZ

83,7

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---
# C_2006257EN.01001501.xml

| 25.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/15

---

Adoption of five reference documents for the purpose of Council Directive 96/61/EC from 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1)

1

(2006/C 257/06)

On 16 August 2006, the Commission adopted the complete texts of the reference documents on

| — | best available techniques for waste incineration |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for waste incineration

| — | best available techniques for waste treatment industries |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for waste treatment industries

| — | best available techniques for the surface treatment of metals and plastics |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for the surface treatment of metals and plastics

| — | best available techniques for organic fine chemicals |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for organic fine chemicals

| — | best available techniques for food, drink and milk industries |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for food, drink and milk industries

These documents are available on the Internet site http://eippcb.jrc.es

---

(1)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

1

---