alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HFE Sediment Modeling

From: LTEMP_ROD Attachment C
HFE Sediment Modeling

1st step: Determine maximum outflow and the ideal date for initiating 

an HFE. Max outflow is the facility capacity on the anticipated HFE date, 

including forecasted maintenance and what units are available. Guidance 

available in LTEMP_ROD Attachment C.

2nd step: Develop HFE discharge curves for the max possible outflow. 

usually 9-16 HFE files (csv). Example: 31900_1h, 31900_12hr, 31900_24hr, etc. 

Duration dictated by sediment load. Max discharge with ramp up and 

ramp down rates provided in LTEMP_ROD Attachment C.

3rd step: follow flow chart, next slide.
HFE Sediment Modeling

Assume zero input 

after actual data

Paria River 

Sed. 15 min 

(GCMRC)

converted to 

hourly

Sed ZB 

input

Sed LB 

input

Sed UB 

input

GCD outflow 

15min (USBR) CRFS.exe

Converted 

to hourly 

Flow

add 

anticipated 

outflow

CRFSSout

(Macro) Converted 

flow for 

input

Update input.txt file 

with all relevant 

information

RUN

Output 

LB,ZB,UB

Model Results

HFE Triggered 

Max discharge 

and duration 

leaving no net 

sediment loss

No HFE 

conditions 

not met
HFE Sediment Modeling
HFE Sediment Modeling
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

July 8, 2011

No. 07

- 4394

United States of America

v.

John A. O’Neal, Appellant

(E.D. Pa. No. 04

- mj

- 01060 )

Present: HARDIMAN, ALDISERT, Circuit Judges and RESTANI *

, Judge

1. Mo tion by Appellee to Correct Opinion of the Court.

Respectfully,

Clerk/ slc

____________________ _____________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing Motion is GRANTED.

I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, f iled June 22,

2011, be amended as follows:

Page 3

, Section II, second line, which read:

On appeal, the United States concedes that it failed to demonstrate that O’Neal’s

protest occurred on VA property.

shall read:

In its Summary of A r gument in the brief before us the United States Attorney

states: “ The government, upon careful consideration of the matter, reverses its earlier

position and agrees with that part of the Appellant’s argument asserting that the

government presented insufficient eviden ce to support a restriction on O’Neal’s political

activity on October 28, 2004. The government did not sustain its burden in defeating the

presumption that the area where O’Neal mounted his protest was a public forum; and

* The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International

Trade, sitting by designation.2

further did not establish the circ umstances justifying a restriction on political speech in a

public forum. ”

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas M. Hardiman

Circuit Judge

Dated: July 18, 2011

CRG: \ All counsel of record
,,’ - ,’

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  tmbnmry 7, 1939 

## Hon. lc.H.ariirin county

**Attorlwy Young**  county Oraham, Tour **Dmar Slrr** 

thsr or **not** inprolJ4outing **ha8 been** **rroeirod** inion ‘a8 to whrlegally approo rmy tolsnlrt l ttmntlon to Artiolo 85 0, state or nxar, Rmrl~44 orlmlnal oama in the dlmtriot atriot, exoopt in oases where **or4** hlr 

### l

leotlon, **4mploy46 ab**  

### y arirninal prooreding 18 had ning oourt ln his dlstrlot or upon hbeae oorpua, 

### and he LB

and 16 at the time within rhall npm6ent the State therein, **unlrar pm**  rented by other oiiloial dutfer.W

**The** 

### Comnlsrionar8~ **Oourt oan**  euroioe **only** 

### maoh power8 aa **the** Constitution or the Leglrrlatun rpeoi~ioally1 - p Hon. B. H. Grirfin, February 7, 1939, Page fs

oonfer4 upon thm, Conrtltution, Art1014 5, 640. 18; Landman VII. Stat4 (Court of Civil Appralrr) 97 6W(84) i?i64-wPIt of error rafu64b; Bland ~5. Crr, 90 Ter. 492, 59 SW558; Mill* vs. Lampasar County, 90 Tex. 903, 40 SW403.

‘. UI rerpeotfu$ly 4drie14 that w 4r4 **unable to**  find my authority whloh would psrrmlt th4 CommI44ionar4~ Court to appropriate money In hiring an outride attorney to l8618t the DI4trIot Attorney in ths perforaanos af 4uoh duties 41~3it 14, therrfore, the opinion of this D4partmant that 8uoh l

otlon on the part oi the CoamI8aIoners~ Court would not be 4uthorIzed. v4w truly your8 ATToRrnYGmERALcp TKXAS (sU4d) Wm.J. R. ICI= BY A#eI4tant

APPPROVED: (Signed) Gerald C. Mann ATTCRNEYWNERAL

OFTEXAS
# L_2009332EN.01004801.xml

| 17.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 332/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 332/48

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1238/2009

of 11 December 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the Register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2009.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 111, 15.5.2009, p. 21.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY

Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio (PDO)

---
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

GCMRC Science Update –

Sediment and Fisheries

Scott VanderKooi

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Cathedral Wash -- RM 2.5 L

11/24/2012

11/18/2012 02/06/2013

05/02/2013

Erosion of fall 2012 HFE Deposit
“22-Mile” -- RM 22 R

11/26/2012

11/17/2012 02/06/2013

05/08/2013

Erosion of fall 

2012 HFE Deposit

Persistence of HFE Deposit
Sand Pile -- RM 30 R

11/27/2012

11/18/2012 02/06/2013

05/13/2013

Persistence of HFE Deposit
Carbon -- RM 65.1 R

11/28/2012

11/17/2012 02/06/2013

05/15/2013

Erosion of fall 

2012 HFE Deposit

Persistence of HFE Deposit
Emerald Camp -- RM 104 R

11/26/2012

11/18/2012 02/20/2013
RM 104 R

11/26/2012

11/18/2012 02/21/2013

05/16/2013

Erosion of fall 

2012 HFE Deposit 

(overnight)

Emerald Camp -- RM 104 R
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

-4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Proportion

Miles Moved Upstream Downstream

N = 273

Age-0 Rainbow Trout Movement in Glen Canyon:

October to December 2012

90% recaptured 

within 0.25 mi of 

release location

(Preliminary Data from Korman and Yard 2013, Do Not Cite)
Rainbow Trout Natal Origins: 

Glen Canyon and Marble Canyon
Rainbow Trout Movement

1 = Glen Canyon

2 = House Rock

3 = Buck Farm

4A = Above LCR

4B = Below LCR

(Preliminary Data 

from Korman

and Yard 2013, 

Do Not Cite)

Most rainbow trout 

move little between 

marking and recapture
Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring
Juvenile Chub Monitoring: 

Humpback Chub Catches

2013 catches appear 

low, but similar to 

those observed during 

the NSE project

(Preliminary Data from Korman and Yard 2013, Do Not Cite)
Spring Abundance & CPUE Humpback Chub 150-199 mm

(Preliminary Data from VanHaverbeke and Bunch 2013, Do Not Cite)

High seasonal and 

annual variability in 

abundance common in 

populations of young fish
Juvenile Chub Monitoring: 

Brown Trout Catches

2013 catches 

dominated by smaller 

fish (< 300 mm)

(Preliminary Data from Korman and Yard 2013, Do Not Cite)
Tailwater Synthesis Update

 Fish population data for 57 tailwaters

 Promised data from 15 more

 Duration of data sets from 1 – 45 years

 34 systems: 1 – 10 years

 15 systems: 11 – 20 years

 8 systems: 21+ years

 Invertebrate data from half (generally poor 

information from most)

 Discharge data from all, temperature data 

from a few
Questions?
#### Whalen *v.*Standard Gas-Light Co.

*(Common Pleas of New York, City and County, General Term.*

June 2, 1890.)

Appeal—Rulings on Evidence—Errors Cured.

In an action by a servant against bis master for injuries alleged to have been caused by defective appliances, the error in admitting in evidence a statement of defendant’s foreman is not cured by instructing the jury to disregard it.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Patrick Whalen against the Standard Gas-Light Company of the city of New York to recover damages for a personal injury. There was a verdict for plaintiff for $5,000. From the judgment rendered thereon defendant appeals.

Argued before Daly and Bookstaver, JJ.

*J. W. Hawes,*for appellant. *Wm. C. Neddy,*for respondent.

Daly, J.

The plaintiff, a laborer in the defendant’s employment, was injured while loading gas-mains upon a truck, and it is claimed that defendant furnished unsafe appliances for the work; the truck, and the means for load-it, being, as alleged, unsuitable and improper. On the trial, a fellow-workman of the plaintiff was permitted to testify to a declaration made by defendant’s foreman after the accident that the truck was not a fit truck to load pipe on. The exception to the admission of this evidence requires the reversal of the judgment. Admissions and declarations of an agent after the fact, not part of the *res gestee,*are not admissible. An attempt was made to cure the error by a subsequent direction to the jury to disregard the evidence. This is unavailing. *Erben*v. *Lorillard,*19 N. Y. 299; *Church*v. *Howard,*79 N. Y. 415. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ROBERT M. MORANO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 35556

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 00386

- HZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 8 , 2020 * *

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit

Judges.

Robert M. Morano ( “ Mor a no ” ) appeals pro se the imposition of a civil penalty

for his admitted insider trading in violation of Sections 10(b) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 ( “ Exchange Act ” )

, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)

, and Exchange Act

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is sui table for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Rule 10b

- 5(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b

- 5(b)

. We have jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. §

1291 and affirm.

Mor a no’s consent judgment resolved all issues of liability, leaving only a

determination whether a civil penalty should be imposed and, if so, in what amount.

The Securities & Exchange Commission ( “ SEC ” ) argued for a penalty of three times

the amount of insider trading gain. The district court imposed a penalty of $75,000

,

or twice the gain.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, SEC v. Platfor ms Wireless Int’l Corp

. , 617

F.3d 1072, 1098 (9 th Cir. 2010), the determination to impose a civil penalty and

calculation of its amount were reasonable given Mor a no’s admitted misuse of insider

information and his admission that he had engaged in similar conduct in the past.

AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30252 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. F R E D JO IN E R , III D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U S D C N o . 2 :06 -C R -3 3 8 -1 B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e at t or ney appo i nt ed t o re pre se ntF r ed Joi ner , II I , h as m ove d forl eave t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ersv. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 7 38 ( 19 67 ) . Jo i ne rhas notf i l e d a r e s po ns e . O uri nde pe nde ntre vi e w of t he r e c o r d a n d co u n s e l’ s b r ie f d is c lo s e s n o n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G R A N T E D , co u n s e l is e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e rr e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e AP P EA L I S DI S M I S S ED . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF 

OREGON, et al.,

No. 3:16-cv-00109-PK

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

BARBIE DOE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On October 31, 2016, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [50], recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [12] should 

be GRANTED, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [17] should be DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Judgment [43] should be DENIED. Judge Papak also recommended that Plaintiffs’ 

“First Criminal Complaint on Information” [17-1] and “Original Title 18 Criminal Complaint” 

[18-1] should be DISMISSED. Plaintiffs’ filed their Objections to the F&R [56] on December 6, 

2016. 

DISCUSSION

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

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

Case 3:16-cv-00109-PK Document 58 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

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

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

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

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

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

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

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

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

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

Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [50] as 

my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of February, 2017. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00109-PK Document 58 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.1


 





Mutual Termination
Agreement 


 


This Mutual Termination
Agreement is made effective May 19, 2020, by and among Noble Vici Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its place of principal
executive office at 1 Raffles Place, #33-02, One Raffles Place Tower One, Singapore 048616 (the "Company"), and Eldee
Wai Chong Tang (“ET”), a 51% shareholder and representative of Elusyf Global Private Limited, a Singapore Corporation
(“EGPL”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and EGPL are parties to that certain Binding Memorandum of Understanding dated April 1, 2019 (the “MOU”), pursuant
to which the Company agreed to reorganize 51% shareholdings of EGPL into the Company, by way of transfer of all shares from ET
to the Company; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
the MOU, the closing of the strategic partnership was anticipated to occur on or before June 30, 2019.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing recitals and for good and valuable mutual consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties, intending to be legally bound, do hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:


 


Agreement


 


1.     
Mutual Termination. Effective immediately upon execution of this Mutual Termination Agreement, each party hereto hereby
completely and immediately terminates the MOU, and acknowledges and agrees that neither party shall have any obligation or liability
to the other in connection with the MOU.


2.     
Entire Agreement. This Mutual Termination Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter
contained herein. It supersedes, and its terms govern, all prior proposals, agreements, or other communications between the parties,
oral or written, regarding the subject matter contained herein.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Mutual Termination Agreement as of the date first set forth above.


 


 


	
        NOBLE VICI GROUP, INC.

         

        By: /s/ Sin Chi Yip

               Sin
        Chi Yip

        Its: Chief Corporate Officer

         

         
	
         

         

        By: /s/ Eldee Wai Chong Tang

               Eldee
        Wai Chong Tang
#### Jiri Horak *v.*State of Connecticut et al.

*Benjamin M. Chapnick,*on the motion.

*S. Victor Feingold,*assistant attorney general, for the defendant (state).

Argued April 1

decided April 1, 1975

The motion by Benjamin M. Chapnick to withdraw his appearance in behalf of the plaintiff in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted.
#### Brattleboro Retreat, Appellant, v David J. Duquette, Respondent.

— Main, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Prior, Jr., J.), entered October 22, 1985 in Albany County, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

In August 1981, defendant’s wife was admitted to plaintiffs facility for medical treatment. In connection with her admission, defendant signed a financial agreement whereby he agreed to pay for all charges which were not covered by insurance. It appears from the record that defendant’s insurance carrier disclaimed all but a small portion of the total bill, and plaintiff thereafter commenced this action to recover the amount not covered by insurance. As an affirmative defense to the action, defendant contended that plaintiffs representative had told him that his insurance would cover the hospital stay, but that in fact the insurance carrier denied coverage because it did not recognize plaintiff as a medical facility. Plaintiffs subsequent motion for summary judgment was denied on the basis of this defense, Special Term finding that the actual facts and circumstances with regard to this defense would have to be determined at trial.

We affirm Special Term’s denial of plaintiffs motion. Plaintiff correctly notes that this court need not give credence to a raised issue which does not appear to be genuine *(see, Glick & Dolleck v Tri-Pac Export Corp.,*22 NY2d 439, 441) and that bald, conclusory assertions, even if believable, will not suffice to defeat summary judgment *(Mahar v Mahar,*111 AD2d 501, 502). However, we do not believe defendant’s assertions to be *907so improbable that they are clearly not genuine. At the time of the wife’s hospitalization, according to defendant, he and his wife were separated and in the process of obtaining a divorce, but his wife was still covered by his health insurance policy. Given the state of defendant’s marriage, it is entirely possible that defendant sought and obtained a representation from plaintiff that his wife’s hospitalization would be covered by insurance. Moreover, we find that defendant’s claims constitute more than bald, conclusory assertions. The fact that defendant has been unable to identify by name the employee of plaintiff with whom he allegedly spoke should not be held against defendant on the determination of this motion *(see, Piccolo v De Carlo,*90 AD2d 609). Accordingly, Special Term’s order should be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# L_2010155DE.01006102.xml

| 22.6.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 155/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 155/61

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2009/51/EG der Kommission vom 25. Mai 2009 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 91/414/EWG des Rates hinsichtlich der Spezifikation des Wirkstoffs Nicosulfuron

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 127 vom 26. Mai 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 127 vom 26. Mai 2009

Auf Seite 5, in Erwägungsgrund 1:

anstatt:

„Hinsichtlich der Reinheit wurde in der Richtlinie 2008/40/EG ein Mindestgehalt von 930 g/kg auf der Grundlage der vom Anmelder vorgelegten Spezifikation festgelegt“

muss es heißen:

„Hinsichtlich der Reinheit wurde in der Richtlinie 2008/40/EG ein Mindestgehalt von 930 g/kg auf der Grundlage der vom Antragsteller vorgelegten Spezifikation festgelegt“.

---