alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Government to Government Consultation Meeting Between 

Department of the Interior Agencies 

And 

The Pueblo of Zuni 

Regarding Mechanical Removal of Non-Native Fish from the Colorado River 

As Part of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

To Satisfy the 2007 and 2008 Biological Opinions of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pueblo of Zuni Tribal Council Chambers - Zuni, New Mexico 

15 September 2009 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM* 

*A Tour of the A:Shiwi A:Wan Zuni Museum, at 12:15 PM, will precede the Consultation 

DRAFT AGENDA

Time Topic Presenter 

1:00 PM Welcome and Introductions 

• Importance of the Grand Canyon, Confluence of the LCR & 

Colorado Rivers, and the Sacredness of Life to the Zuni 

• Zuni Concerns About Mechanical Removal 

Governor Cooeyate 

Arden Kucate 

1:30 PM Message from the Department of Interior 

• Responsibilities of the DOI to Indian Tribes 

Deanna Archuleta 

DOI Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Water and 

Science 

1:45 PM Purpose of the Consultation Meeting 

• Process for Consultation 

• Overview: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

• Brief History of Mechanical Removal 

Larry Walkoviak 

Bureau of Reclamation 

2:05 PM Mechanical Removal and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Biological Opinion and Conservation Measures 

• Secretarial Order 3206 

• Previous Consultation with Tribes 

• Future dialogues between USFWS and Indian Tribes 

regarding GDCAMP – Related Proposals 

Sam Spiller 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

2:20 PM Mechanical Removal and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

• Native Fish in the Colorado River Basin 

• The Humpback Chub and Threats from Non-Native Fish 

• Mechanical Removal of Non-Native Fish 

• GCMRC’s Responsibility to Indian Tribes 

John Hamill 

Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research 

Center 

2:45 PM Grand Canyon National Park and GCDAMP 

• Permitting Mechanical Removal 

• GCNP’s Responsibility to Indian Tribes 

Steve Martin 

Grand Canyon National 

Park 

3:00 PM Discussion 

• Addressing Zuni Concerns 

• Future Consultation Process and Meetings 

Governor Cooeyate, Zuni 

Tribal Council, Zuni 

Cultural Advisor Team, 

and DOI Agencies 

4:00 PM Adjourn
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-7059 

BETTY J. CHAMBERLAIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00276-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Betty J. Chamberlain, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,

III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Betty J. Chamberlain seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Chamberlain that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Chamberlain failed to object to the

magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Chamberlain has waived appellate review by

failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper

notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND> 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTH
PERIOD  ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1997 WHICH ARE  INCLUDED IN THE  REGISTRANT'S  FORM
10-KSB  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016439
<NAME>                        Intelligroup, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         8,821
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                   799
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               37,866
<PP&E>                                         5,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,194
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       133
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   42,006
<SALES>                                        94,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               94,326
<CGS>                                          65,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  65,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               22,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,988
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,661
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,661
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .37 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .36 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>      This amount represents Basic Earnings per Share in accordance with the
          requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 -
          "Earnings per Share".

<F2>      This amount  represents  Diluted Earnings per Share in accordance with
          the  requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No.
          128 - "Earnings per Share".
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### CATOIR v. BUDENBENDER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1896.)

Action by John Catoir against George F. Budenbender.

No opinion. The papers on this application will be filed with the clerk of this court; the motion to stand over until after the trial of the action brought by the moving party against the attorney. It may then be brought on for hearing upon these papers, together with such additional papers as shall then be served by either party.
#### HAZELTINE CORPORATION v. RCA CORPORATION.

No. 84-8.

Aug. 29, 1984.

The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed pursuant to Rule 53 of this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 48434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18647]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS Research 
Advisory Committee, NIAID.
    The meeting will be open to the public. The open session will be 
videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting 
website (http://videocast.nih.gov). Individuals who need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.
    Date: September 13, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: Report of Division Director and Division Staff.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 8D49, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Pamela Gilden, Branch Chief, Science Planning 
and Operations Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 
8D49, Rockville, MD 20852-9831, 301-594-9954, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#651504080009044b020c0901000b250b0c0d4b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5020313d353c317e37393c34353e103e39387e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 25, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-18647 Filed 8-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# L_2009062EN.01000601.xml

| 6.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/6

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 178/2009

of 5 March 2009

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

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), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 3 March 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 3 March 2009.

| (3) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 3 March 2009, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(c) and in Article 2 of that Regulation shall be EUR 22,00/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 March 2009.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 March 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 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
**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 SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Thomas C.K. Yuen, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:   April 30, 2012 | By:      | /s/ THOMAS C.K. YUEN                                |
|------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                         |     | Thomas C.K. Yuen                                    |
| * *                     | * * | *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *                     | * * | *(Principal Executive Officer)*                     |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      13,238
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,026
<INVENTORY>                                  6,380
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,968
<PP&E>                                      68,631
<DEPRECIATION>                              53,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       94,662
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    30,564
<OTHER-SE>                                 (77,774)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,452
<SALES>                                     84,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,400
<CGS>                                        9,335
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              315,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (214,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (214,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (214,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.070)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.070)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PATHOGENESIS CORPORATION FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,605,575
<SECURITIES>                                34,654,928
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,914,111
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                 13,214,650
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,874,269
<PP&E>                                      32,491,428
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,918,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              97,830,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,409,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,570
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,846,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                97,830,384
<SALES>                                     39,561,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,936,576
<CGS>                                        6,876,378
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               41,943,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               191,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,110,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,110,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,110,764)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
<FN>
<F1>THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES REPORTED IS NET OF $3,223,200 OF ALLOWANCES.
<F2>THE TOTAL COSTS INCLUDE LOSS PROVISION OF $91,420
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Royce BIRDSBILL, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30261.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 19, 2007.

Craig W. Haller, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Mayo J. Ashley, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Royce Birdsbill, Sr. appeals from his jury conviction and 60-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493*743(1967), Birdsbill’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The Government did not file an answering brief.

Our independent review of the briefs and the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, all other pending motions are denied, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHRISTINA MARIE RATHSACK, )

) Case No. 6:15-cv-01526-SI

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

v. ) UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY 

) FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

COMMISSIONER, )

Social Security Administration, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

SIMON, District Judge:

Plaintiff Christina Marie Rathsack brought this action seeking review of the 

Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits under 

the Social Security Act. The Court reversed the Commissioner’s decision, remanded the case for 

further proceedings, and entered judgment on September 25, 2016.

Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant has not 

objected to the request. I have reviewed the record in this case, the motion, and the supporting 

materials, including the award of benefits, the fee agreement with counsel, and the recitation of

counsel’s hours and services. Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 

789, 796 (2002), the Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

[6:15-cv-01526-SI] 

Page 2 of 2 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(b) is hereby GRANTED, 

and Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $24,645.75 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

Previously, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $6,361.53 under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. In addition, Plaintiff’s hearing representative 

will receive an administrative fee of $5,909.00. When issuing the § 406(b) check for payment to 

Plaintiff’s attorney, the Commissioner is directed to subtract the amounts awarded for the EAJA 

and administrative fees and send Plaintiff’s attorney the balance of $12,375.22, less any 

applicable processing or user fees prescribed by statute. Any amount withheld after all 

administrative and court attorney fees are paid should be released to the claimant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2018. 

__/s/ Michael H. Simon_____________ 

MICHAEL H. SIMON 

United States District Judge 

Proposed Order submitted by: 

Katherine L. Eitenmiller 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C.

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

keitenmiller@hwbm.net 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff