alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Status of Developing Triennial 

Budget and Work Plan

Seth Shanahan

April 20, 2017
Ideas

TWG recommendation to AMWG

January February March April May June

Getting to a TWG Recommendation
TWG meeting 

to consider draft TWP, 

including anticipated 

funding sources
A Layered Approach

TWG “individual” input

AHG “group” input

TWG “group” input

BAHG “group” input

AMWG input

TWG

Recommendation
TWG Format to Think Carefully about the 

TWP

• Draft budget presentations

• Reclamation – Katrina

• GCMRC – Scott

• Advisory presentation by David Braun

• BAHG specific comments

• Group exercise to identify issues of concern

• Green card – no concerns, would support 

• Yellow card – need more info or minor concerns, would not block consensus

• Red card – major concerns, would block consensus

KA is a 

support 

tool
2017 2017

Today

Apr May Jun

1st draft issued

4/10/2017

TWG meeting

4/20/2017

1st draft comments due

4/26/2017

BAHG call (8-10 am Pacific)

4/28/2017

BAHG call (9-11 am Pacific)

5/9/2017

2nd draft issued

5/16/2017

BAHG call (9-11 am Pacific)

5/19/2017

AMWG webinar

5/24/2017

BAHG meeting

5/25/2017

2nd draft comments due

6/6/2017

BAHG call (12-3 pm Pacific)

6/12/2017

3rd draft issued

6/16/2017

TWG 

meeting

6/28/2017

4/10/2017 - 4/26/2017 TWG and SAP to review and 

comment on 1st draft

Reclamation/GCMRC to prepare 2nd draft 4/27/2017 - 5/16/2017

TWG and SAP to review and comment on 2nd draft 5/17/2017 - 6/6/2017

Reclamation/GCMRC to prepare 3rd draft 6/7/2017 - 6/16/2017

TWG and SAP to review and comment on 3rd draft 6/17/2017 - 6/24/2017

Post-TWG
#### TRELFORD, Appellant, v. CONEY ISLAND & B. R. CO., Respondent. LAKELAND v. SAME.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 23, 1896.)

On reargument. For decision on appeal, see 39 N. Y. Supp. 20.

PER CURIAM.

When this case was last before us we did not overlook the questions discussed by the appellant on the present motion for a reargument, though as to two of such questions we regarded them as settled by concessions of the respective counsel made on the argument. In our opinon, the removal by the defendant of its tracks from a part of the Coney Island plank road, and its abandonment of that part of its road for a period, did not determine or forfeit the defendant’s franchise over such road, so as to prevent the defendant from relaying its tracks thereon. Such abandonment only operated as a cause of forfeiture, of which the people alone could take advantage, as was done in the case of People v. Broadway R. Co., 126 N. Y. 29, 26 N. E. 961. The principle that an abutter has sufficient special interest in a street to restrain an unlawful structure therein has no application to this case, for the defendant’s railroad is a lawful structure till the state claims a forfeiture. The proceeding to open Neptune avenue did not and could not affect the defendant’s railroad franchise, whether an award was made for it or not. The opening proceeding was to acquire all property rights necessary to- vest in the people of the state or the city of Brooklyn the easement of a public highway in the land taken. The railroad easement and franchise was not inconsistent, but consistent, with the public easement, and there was no authority given by law to condemn it. It was conceded by counsel for the defendant, and properly, in our opinion, that the defendant could not use electric power in the operation of its railroad without the consent of the railroad commissioners. We also think that it must be confined, in relaying its road, to the location of the old Coney Island road; though we do not say that by the consent of the local authorities such location may not be changed to the new part of Neptune uvenue. Such change would not be the grant of a new franchise. The injunction should, therefore, be not wholly vacated, but modified so as to restrain the defendant from operating its road with electricity except with the consent of the railroad commissioners, or on any part of Neptune avenue not lying within the limits of the old Coney Island road, except by the consent of the local authorities.
#### Water Resources Commission *v.*Connecticut Sand and Stone Corporation

(No. 7682)

*Robert L. Hirtle,*for the defendant (appellant).

No appearance for the plaintiff (appellee).

Argued May 6

decided May 6, 1975

It appearing that the defendant in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute its appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed unless the defendant files its brief on or before June 4, 1975.
<PAGE>

                                  HISPANIC TELEVISION NETWORK, INC.
                                   COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2001


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      3/31/2001
                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          NO. OF SHARES
                                -------------------------------        DAYS          PERCENTAGE          WEIGHTED
                                    ISSUED         OUTSTANDING     OUTSTANDING         OF TIME            AVERAGE
                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                 <C>         <C>                <C>             <C>               <C>                <C>
Shares Outstanding 12/31/00                         90,822,587             11            12.2%          11,100,538

Shares Issued:
                    1/11/2001      1,000,000        91,822,587              5             5.6%           5,101,255
                    1/16/2001      2,559,000        94,381,587              6             6.7%           6,292,106
                    1/22/2001         40,777        94,422,364              2             2.2%           2,098,275
                    1/24/2001      1,004,000        95,426,364             12            13.3%          12,723,515
                     2/5/2001         54,522        95,480,886              4             4.4%           4,243,595
                     2/9/2001      1,000,000        96,480,886             19            21.1%          20,368,187
                    2/28/2001      6,000,000       102,480,886              5             5.6%           5,693,383
                     3/5/2001      4,807,500       107,288,386             10            11.1%          11,920,932
                    3/15/2001         65,303       107,353,689             16            17.8%          19,085,100
                                -------------                  ----------------------------------------------------
                                  16,531,102                               90           100.0%          98,626,886
                                =============                  ====================================================



                                             NET LOSS                                                   (5,985,467)
                                             Weighted Avg No. of Outstanding Shares                     98,626,886
                                                                                               --------------------
                                                                                                             (0.06)

</TABLE>

Potentially dilutive securities totaling 11,675,412 additional shares of common
stock resulting from the conversion or exercise of preferred stock, stock
options and warrants are not included in the calculation as the effect is
antidilutive.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. O SCA R K EV I N BO N D S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 30209 D. C. No . 2 : 9 6 - c r - 0 0 3 7 6 - J LR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J a m e s L . R obart , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O s c a rK e vi n B onds appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) m ot i on for r educt i on of se nt ence . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JU L 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 30209 2 B o n d s c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n b yd e c lin in g to r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on the r e tr oa c t i ve a m e ndm e nt s t o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s tha tl ow e r e d the pe na l t i e s f orc r a c k c oc a i ne of

f e ns e s . B onds i s not el i g i b l e fo r a sen t en ce red u ct i o n b ecau se h i s sen t en ce w as b asedo n th e p art i es’ st i pu l at i on i n a bi nd i ng pl eaagre em entun der F eder alR ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 11( c ) ( 1) ( C ) , a nd not“ on as e nt e nc i ng r ange tha tha s s ubs e que nt l ybe e n l ow e r e d by th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ,” a s r e q u ir e db ys e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . See Fre em an v. U ni ted States , 1 3 1 S . C t. 2 6 8 5 , 2 6 9 5 - 9 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( S o to m ay o r , J ., c o n c u rr in g ) . N ei th er ex cep t i o n th atw o u l dal l o w u s t o co n cl u d e o th erw i se ap p l i es h ere, b ecau se the t erm s of the pl eaagre em entprov i de no i nd i cat i on of a part i cul arG ui del i nes s e nt e nc i ng r a nge appl i c abl e t o B onds ’ s of f e ns e s , nori s a nyG ui de l i ne s r ange e x p r e s s lyu s e din th e a g r e e m e n t o re v id e n t f r o m th e a g r e e m e n t its e lf . See U ni ted Sta tes v . A u s tin , 67 6 F . 3d 92 4, 93 0 (9th C i r. 20 12 ). A s s uch, B on ds’ s s ent ence w as b a s e do n th e p le aa g r e e m e n t, an dth e d is tr ic t c o u rt la c k e dju r is d ic tio n to m o d if yh is s e n te n c e u n d e rs e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Se e i d. AF F I RME D.
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
 Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory: Kerrville, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Docs
                    Grand Challenge Synergies ProjectSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Business
               History and Impact
               Mission of the Laboratory
               Main
               Current Weather Data
               Weather Data Files
               IACUC


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
732 A.2d 1198

#### In the Matter of Jonathan L. WESNER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 15, 1999.

*266
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 1999, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated May 18, 1999, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that JONATHAN L. WESNER, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1755 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to make certain 

improvements in the congressional charter of the Disabled American Veterans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1755 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER OF DISABLED 

2 AMERICAN VETERANS. 

3 (a) PURPOSES.—Section 50302 of title 36, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

6 striking ‘‘The purposes of the corporation are—’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘The corporation is organized exclu8 sively for charitable and educational purposes. The 

9 purposes of the corporation shall include—’’; 

10 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

11 end; 

12 (3) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para13 graph (9); and 

14 (4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the fol15 lowing new paragraphs: 

16 ‘‘(7) to educate the public about the sacrifices 

17 and needs of disabled veterans; 

18 ‘‘(8) to educate disabled veterans about the 

19 benefits and resources available to them; and’’. 

20 (b) DISSOLUTION.—Chapter 503 of such title is 

21 amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

22 ‘‘§ 50309. Dissolution 

23 ‘‘On dissolution or final liquidation of the corpora24 tion, any assets remaining after the discharge or satisfac25 tory provision for the discharge of all liabilities shall be 
3 

•HR 1755 EH

1 transferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the 

2 care of disabled veterans.’’. 

3 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

4 at the beginning of chapter 503 of such title is amended 

5 by inserting after the item relating to section 50308 the 

6 following: 

‘‘50309. Dissolution.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1755 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to make 

ter of the Disabled American Veterans. certain improvements in the congressional char-
Exhibit 32.2

            CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                          OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, the undersigned Jack (J.D.) Draper, President and Chief Executive
Officer of FIRSTPLUS Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

         1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
ended June 30, 2005 (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.


Dated: October 21, 2005                    /s/ Jack (J.D.) Draper
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Jack (J.D.) Draper
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           Principal Accounting Officer
UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 

CHERYL N. INMON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COL VIN, Acting 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendants. 

Aiken, Judge: 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Case No. 1: 15-cv-00982-CL 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Clark issued Findings and Recommendation in the above-captioned 

cases, recommending that plaintiffs application for attomey fees be granted. The matter is now 

before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to 

any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a 

de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's repott. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); 

lJ!lcDonnel/ Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business lvfachines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th 

Cir. 1981). Defendant filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

1 -ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-00982-CL Document 29 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 2
Upon de novo review, I find no error. The record does not demonstrate that counsel's 

advocacy for her client was made in bad faith or contributed significantly to the ALJ's eTI'or. To 

the contrary, eirnr could have been avoided by a simple continuance of the administrative 

hearing rather than the evident hostility directed at counsel during the hearing. This is 

particularly trne in light of the ALJ's duty to a claimant; it is not an adversarial relationship. 

Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (an ALJ has an "independent duty" to 

"assure that the claimant's interests are considered," a duty that "extends to the represented as 

well as to the unrepresented claimant") (citation omitted). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and 

Recommendation (doc. 25) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs Application for Fees and 

Motion to Amend (docs. 21, 22) are GRANTED, and plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of 

$6,784.50. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this 9&y of November, 2016. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

2 -ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-00982-CL Document 29 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Mildred Whitney *v.*John O’Brien

No appearance for either party.

Decided May 6, 1975

It appearing that the parties in the above-entitled case have failed to pursue the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal he and hereby is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>              0001000779
<NAME>             CONSOLIDATED DELIVERY & LOGISTICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                              690
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    28,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2,020
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 30,018
<PP&E>                                           18,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                   11,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   67,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25,989
<BONDS>                                             890
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              7
<OTHER-SE>                                       15,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     67,934
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                107,155
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    82,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 21,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    459
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,752
<INCOME-TAX>                                        675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1,077
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,077
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .14


</TABLE>
#### PARSONS, Respondent, v. PAYNE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 6, 1897.)

Action by Fred W. Parsons against Benjamin N. Payne and others.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23(a)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 and Form S-3 (No.
33-34855) for the Flowers Industries, Inc. 1982 Incentive Stock Option Plan and
the Flowers Industries, Inc. 1989 Executive Stock Incentive Plan dated May 18,
1990 and of the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-91198 and
No. 333-23351) for the Flowers Industries, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan,
of our report dated March 23, 1998, appearing in this Transition Report on Form
10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the
Financial Statement Schedule which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
------------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP
Atlanta, Georgia 
March 27, 1998