alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Update on the Glen 

Canyon Dam/Lake Powell 

Dissolved Oxygen Stateof-Practice Project.

Michael Horn, USBR, Denver
Scope of Investigation

1.A synthesis or literature review of low DO issues at other Reclamation and nonReclamation facilities (USACE, TVA, etc.).

2.An assessment of current monitoring methodology and infrastructure at Lake 

Powell.

3.Risk analysis to resources downstream.

4.Potential tools for addressing low D.O. events at GCD.
Solutions to mitigate low D.O. 

and potential for success.

•Source

•Forebay

•Dam

•Tailrace
Dissolved Oxygen, or Dissolved 

Oxygen and Temperature

•Can work with or against each other.
Source

•Not a lot of opportunity here. Vey few success 

stories. Only works for point source effectively. 
Forebay

• Forebay options popular.

•Many options

• Aeration 

• Speece Cone

• Mechanical mixing (surface water pumps)

• Can impact nutrients and/or metals
Dam

•Turbine aeration

•Vacuum Breaker Injection

•Modified Aeration Turbine

•Penstock Injection

•Multi-level intake (temp and D.O.)

•Spill, Outlet works, Jet tubes
Tailrace

•Aeration Weirs

•Speece cone

•Air Diffusers

• There are no known successful diffuser applications. 
How much are we talking about?

•Assuming 100 percent efficiency we would be 

looking at about 22 tons of pure oxygen per day to 

get a 2 mg increase. At a discharge of 8000 CFS

OTE (Oxygen transfer efficiency) values 10% 

for air diffusers and 20-30% for oxygen in 

tailrace. OTE values range from 20- 40% for 

air in draft tubes, 60-90% for oxygen in 

penstocks, and 70-90% for oxygen in 

forebays.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CASSUNDRA TILLMAN, Plaintiff

v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant Civil Action No. 14-1542 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (August 24, 2015) On July 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey ’s Report and R ecommendation was entered , and the parties were allowed 14 days to file objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections have been filed as of this date. Upon careful consideration of the record in this case and of Magistr ate Judge Harvey ’s [21] Report and Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS and ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation in full. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART both Plaintiff ’s [10] Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant ’ s [12] Cross

Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is awarded total fees and costs of $38,353.31 as calculated at page 25 of Magistrate Judge Harvey ’s Report and Recommendation

. Defendant shall make this payment to Plaintiff no later than O ctober 1, 2015.
This Court dismisses this case in its entirety. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR

- KOTELLY United States District Judge
Page 1 – CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Zupancic Rathbone Law Group, P.C.

4949 Meadows Road, Ste. 600

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Tel: 503-968-8200 Fax: 503-968-8017

Neil N. Olsen, OSB No. 053378

nolsen@zrlawgroup.com

Joseph W. Carlisle, OSB No. 152602

jcarlisle@zrlawgroup.com

ZUPANCIC RATHBONE LAW GROUP, P.C.

4949 Meadows Road, Suite 600

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Telephone: 503-968-8200

Facsimile: 503-968-8017

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Copious Creative, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

COPIOUS CREATIVE, INC., an Oregon 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PATRICK EZELL, an individual,

Defendant.

Case No.:

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE

STATEMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, plaintiff makes the following disclosures:

1. Copious Creative, Inc., is an Oregon corporation. 

2. Copious Creative, Inc. has no parent corporation and there is no publicly-held 

corporation owning 10% or more of its stock.

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-00427-BR Document 1-3 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 – CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Zupancic Rathbone Law Group, P.C.

4949 Meadows Road, Ste. 600

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Tel: 503-968-8200 Fax: 503-968-8017

DATED this 8th day of March, 2016. 

ZUPANCIC RATHBONE LAW GROUP, P.C.

/s/ Neil N. Olsen

Neil N. Olsen, OSB No. 053378

nolsen@zrlawgroup.com

Joseph W. Carlisle, OSB No. 152602

jcarlisle@zrlawgroup.com

Telephone: 503-968-8200

Facsimile: 503-968-8017

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Copious Creative, Inc.

Case 3:16-cv-00427-BR Document 1-3 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2
CONSENT OF SRK CONSULTING (UK) LIMITED





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of Cumberland Resources Ltd. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



We hereby consent to the references to our name under the heading Narrative Description of Business -- Meadowbank Gold Project, Nunavut Territory, Canada in the Companys Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Information Form) which is included as part of the Annual Report, and to all other references to our name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report, and we further consent to the reliance in the Annual Report on our independent due diligence audit of the Feasibility Study Technical Report (as defined in the Annual Information Form) which the Company used, or directly quoted from, in preparing summaries concerning the Meadowbank Gold Project, which appear in such Annual Report.



SRK Consulting (UK) Limited





By: /s/ Mike Armitage



Name:

Dr. Mike Armitage

Title:

Managing Director







March 29, 2007
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Kenneth D. Wingate

*Domenick J. Gallu&so,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*James M. Diorio,*special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued June 3

decided June 3, 1975

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
Exhibit 4.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


 


TO THE


 


INSMED INCORPORATED 2019 INCENTIVE PLAN


 


May 12, 2020


 


WHEREAS, Insmed Incorporated (the “Company”)
sponsors and maintains the Insmed Incorporated 2019 Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan reserves
to the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) the right to amend the Plan from time to time; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the
Plan in the manner hereinafter provided, subject to approval by the Company’s shareholders.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows,
effective as of the date of approval by the Company’s shareholders:


 


		1.	The reference to “3,500,000” in Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and replaced with “8,000,000”.



 


		2.	The reference to “3,500,000” in Section 5(c) of the Plan is hereby amended and replaced with “8,000,000”.



 


		3.	This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in, and forms a part of, the Plan. All other terms and provisions of the
Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified by this Amendment. The Plan, as amended by this Amendment, is hereby
ratified and confirmed.



 


[Signature page follows]


 






    	 	 	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer
hereby certifies that the foregoing amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the Board.


 


 


	 	INSMED INCORPORATED
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Christine Pellizzari
	 	 	Name:	Christine Pellizzari
	 	 	Title:	Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
EL VADO LAKELatitude: 36.595Longitude: -106.737Elevation: 6900

EL VADO LAKE

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hopewell Site Page...



Hopewell
# L_2015104EN.01005201.xml

| 23.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 104/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 104/52

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2009 of 18 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 17 of 22 January 2009
  )

On page 2, Article 1(3)(b):

for:

| ‘(b) | at the end of paragraph 2 the following sentences shall be added:

  “For the purpose of [...]. During transportation, the counterfeit notes shall be accompanied at all times by transport orders received for that purpose from the abovementioned authorities, institutions and bodies.”
  ;’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

“For the purpose of [...]. During transportation, the counterfeit notes shall be accompanied at all times by transport orders received for that purpose from the abovementioned authorities, institutions and bodies.”

read:

| ‘(b) | at the end of paragraph 2 the following sentences shall be added:

  “For the purpose of [...]. During transportation, the counterfeit coins shall be accompanied at all times by transport orders received for that purpose from the abovementioned authorities, institutions and bodies.”
  ;’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

“For the purpose of [...]. During transportation, the counterfeit coins shall be accompanied at all times by transport orders received for that purpose from the abovementioned authorities, institutions and bodies.”

on page 3, Article 1(4)(b), new Article 6(1), footnote (*):

for:

| ‘(*) | See the framework for the detection of counterfeits and fitness sorting by credit institutions and other professional cash handlers, available on the ECB website at the following address: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/recyclingeurobanknotes2005.en.pdf”;’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(*)

read:

| ‘(*) | See the framework for the detection of counterfeits and fitness sorting by credit institutions and other professional cash handlers, available on the ECB website at the following address: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/cashprof/html/index.en.html”;’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(*)

on page 3, Article 1(4)(c), new Article 6(1a), footnote (**):

for:

| ‘(**) | The list published by the ECB is available at the following address: http://www.ecb.int/euro/cashhand/devices/results/html/index.fr.html’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(**)

read:

| ‘(**) | The list published by the ECB is available at the following address: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/cashprof/html/index.en.html’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(**)

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Murray R. Gold

*Victor M. Ferrante*and, of the New York bar, *William M. Kunstler,*in support of the motion.

Submitted April 23

decided May 8, 1975

The defendant’s motion that this court review the order of the Superior Court for the judicial district of Waterbury, dated November 25, 1974, fixing his bail in the amount of $500,000 is granted and, it appearing that subsequent to the filing of that motion the Superior Court, acting pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 54-53a, reduced the bond to $300,000, the relief sought in his motion is denied.
PURGATOIRE RIVER NEAR LAS ANIMAS, CO.Latitude: 38.034Longitude: -103.2Elevation: 3878.04

PURGATOIRE RIVER NEAR LAS ANIMAS, CO.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Apishapa Site Page...



Apishapa

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck
Adaptive Management Progr

Funding Considerations

January 26, 2017

Rod Smith

Office of the Solicitor

Department of the Interior

Rodney.Smith@sol.doi.gov
One Rule:

Any activity proposed for fund

must meet the criteria of the fun

authority
Funding Authority Examp

Statutes related to AMP Funding 

For example: 

• Basin Fund Authorities • GCPA Sections 1804(e) and 1805 • Pub. L. No. 106-377, Title II, Sec. 204, 114 Stat. 1441, 

through 1441A-69 (Oct. 27, 2000) 

AMP-Related Documents 

For example: 

• LTEMP Record of Decision • AMWG Charter 
Be Prepared To:

• Explain the desired project • Articulate how the desired project is con

with the funding authority 
Questions?
Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group

Meeting Notes

Monday, April 10, 2017

In attendance: Heather Patno, Jerry Wilhite, Matt Breen, Ashley Nielson, Tildon Jones, Tom 

Chart, Don Anderson, Jed Parker, Kevin Bestgen, Shane Mower

• It has been a very interesting March. The Upper Green has stayed wet and the Yampa has 

dried out. 

• Hydrology Summary was reviewed

o The streamflow on March 21st has already passed record by almost double.

o This does not include March inflows.

o The Yampa is a different story. There has been significant melt except at the 

highest elevations. 

• The ROD allows flexibility for the May 1st classification. We have not seen such a 

difference between Flaming Gorge and Yampa hydrology. There is flexibility to move 

timing of water. We will be operating this year for dam safety.

• Question as to when the Razorback sucker will spawn, because in the last wet year (2011) 

spawn was June 24th. The increased flows out of Flaming Gorge will lower the water 

temperature. The peak of Yampa may happen before the Razorback sucker spawn.

• 2011 had the highest volume out of Yampa. This year the volume is much lower and will 

affect the water temperature.

• George Weekley shared that this year will be very hard to forecast as the conditions are 

unprecedented. He proposes the Pikeminnow spawn will be later than normal.

• As Kevin Bestgen was unable to be on the call, members would like to propose questions 

to him for additional information prior to the next meeting:

o To what extent do the water temperatures in the Green River display a que for 

spawning into the warmer Yampa River.

o What is the chronology of razorback sucker in the Green River

o Is there an advantage to bypass earlier prior to June

o If bypass is utilized in April and forward what affect to razorback sucker

o How does the different hydrology and snowpack in the two basins affect 

spawning chronology

• The ROD requires elevations lower in a wet year. Will need to utilize bypass similar to 

2011. Stakeholders in Price do not want a repeat of 2011. The fishing guides do not like 

the water to fluctuate due to bypass releases. Elevations are required below 6023 by May 

1st. 

• Next FGTWG Meeting will be held at 10:00 am on April 10, 2017.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>               YEAR
<CASH>                            3,235
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    65,187
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,125
<INVENTORY>                     122,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                194,787
<PP&E>                           83,959
<DEPRECIATION>                   26,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  298,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           154,632
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                       3,878
<COMMON>                          2,444
<OTHER-SE>                       35,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    298,128
<SALES>                         515,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                515,518
<CGS>                           454,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   454,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               21,283
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   6,189
<INCOME-TAX>                      2,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               3,775
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      3,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     ($.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     ($.88)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT JESSIE MORALES,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00102-CR

Appeal from

143rd District Court

of Ward County, Texas 

(TC# 19-09-06141-CRW)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Pro Se’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until December 31, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE PRO SE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Robert Jessie Morales, pro se, prepare the Pro Se brief and 

forward the same to this Court on or before December 31, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1

st day of December, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
David P. Braun, Sound Science LLC

GCDAMP Executive Coordinator for Science Adv

TWG Meeting, Phoenix, AZ

January 26, 2017
Current and Recently Ended T

 Wrapped up Fisheries PEP – working with GCMRC 

shepherd final report to completion

 Useful lessons on joint responsibilities of SAP and G

for Independent Review Panels (IRPs) envisioned by 

 Supporting Knowledge Assessment

 Methods & guidance Spreadsheet tool Data integration & report generation with

“scorecard” icons

 Report on effectiveness of KA in

capturing key aspects of state of knowledge
Mandate for IRPs (GCMRC

+ S

 Natural, cultural, and recreational resources affected by 

Canyon Dam operations and the effects of those operat

 Results of ongoing and completed monitoring and rese

activities, and syntheses and assessments of these resu

 Protocols followed in monitoring and research activitie GCMRC long

‐term monitoring plans, annual monitori

research plans, and annual budget proposals

 Any other topics per AMWG request concerning:

 Resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations, effe

operations, options for managing these effects

 Coordination and balancing among resource programs Combined effectiveness of resource programs in advanci

understanding of the Colorado River ecosystem and ensu

progress in defining and conducting adaptive managemeexperiments
Potential IRP focus on adaptiv

management process

 KA and ARM show clear needs for/growing att

to:

 How antecedent conditions affect outcomes of

management actions

 How external drivers affect resource conditions 

outcomes of management actions

 How do LCR and Paria watershed dynamics affect th

to CRE? How will these change with climate change 

changes in land and water use across LCR watershed

 Feedback relationships among resource conditi Interactions with larger ecosystem – e.g., aquati

terrestrial interactions
Tasks for Remainder of FY 2

 Develop SAP three‐year plan

 Need input from TWG, GCMRC, AMWG on ext

review needs for FY 2018‐2020

 Complete SAP charter and protocols update?

 Still tabled, including TWG recommendations 

include a standing panel in SAP capabilities

 External review of GCDAMP integration of trib

values into adaptive management goals & meth

 On hold; possibility for triennial plan

 Rebuild SAP archive, in wiki site
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY EUGENE MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00220-3) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy Eugene Moore seeks to appeal his 165-month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess crack, cocaine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgment on May 4, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on October 13, 2006. *Because Moore failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we 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
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1694 

AN ACT 

To amend MAP–21 to improve contracting opportunities for 

veteran-owned small business concerns, and for other 

purposes. 

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

•HR 1694 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness to Veterans 

3 for Infrastructure Investment Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. 

5 Section 1101(b) of MAP–21 (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (2) by adding at the end the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(C) VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

10 CONCERN.—The term ‘veteran-owned small 

11 business concern’ has the meaning given the 

12 term ‘small business concern owned and con13 trolled by veterans’ in section 3(q) of the Small 

14 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)).’’; 

15 (2) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘and veteran16 owned small business concerns’’ before the period at 

17 the end; and 

18 (3) in paragraph (4)(B)— 

19 (A) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

20 end; 

21 (B) in clause (iii) by striking the period at 

22 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
3 

•HR 1694 EH

1 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(iv) veterans.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1694 

AN ACT 

To amend MAP–21 to improve contracting opporcerns, and for other purposes. tunities for veteran-owned small business con-