alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2009155EN.01005001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 155/50 |

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2009/62/EC

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 151 of 16 June 2009](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_151_R_TOC)
)

On page 15, Annex, ‘List of persons, groups and entities referred to in Article 1’, ‘1. PERSONS’, No 15:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘15. | AHAS, Sofiane Yacine, born 10.9.1971 in Algiers (Algeria) – member of “al Takfir” and “al Hijra”’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘15. | FAHAS, Sofiane Yacine, born 10.9.1971 in Algiers (Algeria) – member of “al Takfir” and “al Hijra”’. |

---
#### Ferris *v.*New Haven Web Co.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action by Francis J. C. Ferris against the New Haven Web Company for wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Defendant set up a judgment as a counter-claim, which judgment was recovered in the same action wherein defendant was arrested. From a judgment sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to the counter-claim, defendant appeals. For opinion in an action wherein plaintiff was arrested, see 4 N. Y. Supp. 610.

Argued before Dtkman and Pratt, JJ.

*Franklin Bien,*for appellant. *Remsen & Parsons, (Daniel S. Remsen,*of counsel,) for respondent.

Pratt, J.

This appeal presents the same questions as the case of this plaintiff against the Armstrong Manufacturing Company, *(ante,*750,) and is controlled by *People*v. *Dennison,*84 N. Y. 272. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
1

Whetton, Linda A

From: Whetton, Linda A

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:37 AM

To: 'Balsom, Jan'; 'Barger, Mary'; 'Barrett, Clifford'; 'Bulletts, Charley'; 'Caramanian, Lori'; 'Castle, 

Anne'; 'Christensen, Kerry'; 'Cox, Jerry'; 'Davis, William E.'; 'Dongoske, Kurt'; 'Downer, Alan'; 

'Ellsworth, Craig'; 'Halliday, John'; 'Harms, Paul'; 'Harris, Christopher S.'; Heffernan, Beverley; 

'Heuslein, Amy'; 'Hughes, Chris'; 'Joe, Tony'; 'Johnson, Rick'; 'Kartha, Vineetha'; 'Kearns, 

Leanette'; 'King, Robert'; Knowles, Glen W; 'Kowalski, Ted'; 'Kubly, Dennis'; 'LaGory, Kirk'; 

'Lash, Nikolai'; 'Myers, Gerald'; 'Orton, Mary'; 'Palmer, Clayton'; 'Peterson, McClain'; 'Rozelle, 

Marty'; 'Schill, Chris'; 'Shields, John W.'; 'Stevens, Larry'; 'Stewart, Bill'; Waldron, Keith A; 

'Yeatts, Michael'; 'Anderson, Mark'; 'Bair, Janet'; 'Benemelis, Perri'; 'Bennion, David'; 'Cantley, 

Garry'; 'Capron, Shane'; 'Chaudhry, Todd'; 'Cole, Jeff'; Crawford, Marianne; 'Dahl, Kevin'; 

'Erlandsen, Evelyn'; 'Fitzpatrick, Lesley'; 'Jackson-Kelly, Loretta'; 'James, Leslie'; 'Jansen, 

Sam'; 'Jordan, John'; 'Makinster, Andy'; 'Morel, James'; 'Ostler, Don'; 'Seaholm, Randy'; 

'Skrzynski, LeAnn'; 'Thiriot, James'; 'Trubee, Meghan'; 'Van Haverbeke, Randy'

Cc: 'Davis, Phil'; 'Fairley, Helen'; 'Garrett, David'; 'Grams, Paul'; 'Mankiller, Serena'; 'Melis, Ted'; 

'Pistorius, Shelley'; 'Schmidt, John "Jack"'; 'Sogge, Mark'; 'Vanderkooi, Scott'; 'Brindle, Todd'; 

'Carter, John'; 'Dickinson, William'; 'Healy, Brian'; 'Kyriss, LaVerne'; 'Moore, Bruce'; 'Nimkin, 

David'; 'Pellegrino, Colby'; 'Shanahan, Seth'; 'Swan, William'; 'Wegner, David'

Subject: FW: SedModel link

Importance: High

Following up on the demonstration Jack gave at the end of the TWG meeting last Thursday, here’s the information

below on accessing the sediment model.

From: gbennett@usgs.gov [mailto:gbennett@usgs.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:38 PM 

To: Whetton, Linda A 

Cc: Vanderkooi, Scott P.; jcschmidt@usgs.gov

Subject: SedModel link 

Linda, 

This is the link to the SedModel program: 

ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/wr/az/flagstaff/dasa/PROGRAMS/SEDMODEL/PROGRAM/CURRENT/SedModel.exe 

1) Create a directory – (finding the data files is easier if this program has its own directory) 

2) Download SedModel.exe into the new directory 

3) Double Click SedModel.exe 

Glenn 928-556-7378 

From: Scott P Vanderkooi/BRD/USGS/DOI

To: Glenn E Bennett/BRD/USGS/DOI@USGS

Date: 06/26/2012 02:59 PM Subject: Fw: Request for Link
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting, April 13-14, 2021

MOTIONS AND VOTES

Michelle Garrison (Colorado) was elected to serve as Technical Work Group (TWG) vicechairperson. Elections for chairperson and vice-chairperson will occur in June as usual.

Steve Wolf nominated Michelle Garrison from Colorado. Seconded by Peggy Roefer. 

Approved by the TWG by consensus.

January 2021 TWG meeting minutes, as distributed as draft on 3/22/2021, were adopted as 

final by consensus with no revisions. 

ACTION ITEMS

1. Outstanding Items from January 21, 2021:

a. Larry Stevens / Administrative History Ad Hoc Group will convene prior to the 

annual reporting meeting to consider featuring Administrative History interviews at 

future AR and TWG meetings. There was also a suggestion to include monthly 

highlights on the Wiki page. 

2. Reclamation will recommend Clarence Fullard to the Secretary’s Designee to serve as the 

Reclamation vice-chairperson and Reclamation’s TWG member. Kerri Pedersen will be 

nominated to serve as Reclamation’s TWG alternate.

3. Reclamation will update the GCDAMP web page to include the budget procedures 

document for the Triennial Workplan and Budget process, as approved by AMWG on March 

6, 2019.

4. Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair, requests all members review (for their own 

participation in) the Ad Hoc Group List and respond to Seth and Tara with any revisions. 

5. Mark Wimer, GCMRC will respond to Nevada and CREDA comments on the FY2020 annual 

report on expenditures via email and will share the response letters with the TWG.

6. Craig Ellsworth, WAPA and BAHG, created a presentation about implications of a potential 

7.48 million acre-feet release in WY2022. That presentation will be made available to the 

TWG by Reclamation to solicit feedback by TWG members and to foster further discussion 

at the June 2021 TWG meeting.

7. The TWG charged the BAHG to examine and approve the second year of the 2021-2023 

GCDAMP Triennial Workplan and Budget before the June TWG meeting. The BAHG will also 

start to consider this year criteria for budget prioritization during the next Triennial Work 

Plan.
8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Reclamation will continue to have conversations on 

Temperature Control Devices and report back at the next TWG meeting.

9. Reclamation will report out to the TWG on their dissolved oxygen risk assessment and 

state-of-practice investigation.

10. Ryan Mann of Arizona Game and Fish Division will update the TWG in June on the updated 

status of Pearce Ferry Rapid fish passage.

11. Reclamation to provide an update about the Monitoring Metrics project objectives and 

progress at the June TWG meeting. 

12. Kim Dibble of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

requests that anyone interested in reviewing the Colorado pikeminnow reintroduction 

feasibility study inform her of their interest to be included in the distribution of the draft 

report.
#### DELANEY et al., Respondents, v. CITIZENS’ INS. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 30, 1896.)

Action by Edward Delaney and Anna Delaney against the Citizens’ Insurance Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Hanson v. Town, Receiver of Taxes, *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.*

May 26, 1890.)

Appeal from special term, Saratoga county.

Action by Henry B. Hanson against Byron J. Town, receiver of taxes, etc., and the village of Saratoga Springs. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Mayham, JJ.

*JSdgar T. Brackett,*for appellants. *Charles S. Lester,*for respondent.

Mayham, J.

The case on this appeal discloses substantially the same state of facts as those contained in the appeal heard at the present term of this court, in which J ames M. Marvin was respondent, and the appellants herein were appellants. *Ante,*148. *151The assessment in this case, as in that, was a personal assessment against the respondent, and does not purport to he an assessment “upon the property adjoining and along the line of the same, [sewer,] and such other property as the board may deem to be benefited thereby, or may at any time enjoy the use thereof, ” as required by section 72 of chapter 136 of the Laws of 1887. Plaintiff’s land is in no way described in the assessment, nor is any land, in terms, referred to therein. All the assessment shows is a list of names, opposite to each of which is carried out, and set down in a column, the amount of the assessment, to which is attached a warrant commanding the receiver of taxes “to levy and collect from the several persons, firms, and corporations named in the foregoing assessment the several amounts set opposite their respective names. ” This warrant is signed by the board of trustees. Under and by virtue of this warrant, the case shows that, at the time of the commencement of this action, the defendant Town, as receiver of taxes, had advertised the respondent’s land, described in the complaint in this action, for sale, claiming to act under such warrant. On the trial at the circuit and special term, this assessment was set aside, and an injunction ordered restraining the defendant Town, as tax receiver, from proceeding to sell the plaintiff respondent’s land, and judgment was entered accordingly; and from that judgment the defendant appealed to this court. We think, within the authority of the case of *Marvin*v. *Town,*above referred to, and for the reason stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment in this case should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
(9 App. Div. 527.)

#### NEW YORK CITY BAPTIST MISSION SOC. v. TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1896.)

Appeal—Time op Taking—Irregular Judgment.

Failure to folio a judgment as required by general rule of practice 19 is a mere irregularity, and does not stop the running of the time within which an appeal from the judgment may be taken.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by the New York City Baptist Mission Society against the Tabernacle Baptist Church and others to foreclose four mortgages, aggregating in amount $83,400. From an order denying a motion by defendants to compel plaintiffs attorneys to receive notice, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and WILLIAMS, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

F. H. Field, for appellants.

E. S. Clinch, for respondent.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

It is admitted that the time to appeal has expired since the service upon the defendant of a copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from, and a written notice of the entry thereof. It is urged, however, that the time did not commence to run, because neither the judgment, as entered, nor the copy served, was folioed as required by rule 19 of the general rules of practice. It is claimed that the clerk had no power to enter the judgment, and it was therefore void. This position, however, cannot be sustained. The want of folioing was a mere irregularity. The court that tried the case had directed the clerk to enter the judgment, and the clerk was bound to follow that direction. If the attorney for the defendant desired to take advantage of this irregularity, it was necessary for him to move to set aside the judgment, and the court, if the ends of justice required it, would grant the motion. But the judgment is not void. It was good as a judgment so long as it remained of record, and a copy of this judgment, with notice of entry thereof, was served. If the copy served had been folioed, and the judgment entered had not been, it might very well have been claimed by the defendant that a copy of the judgment as entered had not been served upon him. Furthermore, if the attorney for the defendant desired to take advantage of the fact that the copy served upon him was not folioed, he was bound to return the same, and apprise the attorney for the plaintiff of the irregularity complained of. As already stated, the failure to folio being a mere irregularity, not ousting the court of jurisdiction, so long as the judgment remained of record it was a good judgment for all purposes, and would not be set aside because of this irregularity unless the ends of justice required it. The defendant has mistaken his remedy. He should have moved to vacate the judgment because of the irregularity.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Form 1. Notice of Appeal from a Judgment or Order of a 

United States District Court

Name of U.S. District Court: 

U.S. District Court case number: 

Date case was first filed in U.S. District Court: 

Date of judgment or order you are appealing: 

Fee paid for appeal? (appeal fees are paid at the U.S. District Court)

Yes No IFP was granted by U.S. District Court

List all Appellants (List each party filing the appeal. Do not use “et al.” or other abbreviations.)

Is this a cross-appeal? Yes No

If Yes, what is the first appeal case number? 

Was there a previous appeal in this case? Yes No

If Yes, what is the prior appeal case number? 

Your mailing address:

City: State: Zip Code:

Prisoner Inmate or A Number (if applicable):

Signature Date

Complete and file with the attached representation statement in the U.S. District Court

Feedback or questions about this form? Email us at forms@ca9.uscourts.gov

Form 1 Rev. 12/01/2018

Oregon

16-cv-00690-CL

04/21/2016

11/09/2018

United States of America

United States Attorney's Office

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600

Portland OR 97204

/s/ Susanne Luse Jan 7, 2019

Case 1:16-cv-00690-CL Document 111 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 1
Scofield Reservoir Boundary Map - This reservoir management boundary map includes all Reclamation-owne

easements. The location shown on this map is approximate and is for general information purposes only. The alocated by qualified survey.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 174 (Monday, September 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50927-50928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19661]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17145 and #17146; New Jersey Disaster Number NJ-
00063]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-
4614-DR), dated 09/05/2021.

[[Page 50928]]

    Incident: Remnants of Hurricane Ida.
    Incident Period: 09/01/2021 through 09/03/2021.

DATES: Issued on 09/05/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/04/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/06/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 09/05/2021, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Bergen, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Passaic, 
Somerset

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.000
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17145 8 
and for economic injury is 17146 0.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-19661 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### In the Matter of Jennifer O.-T., Respondent, v Frederick T., Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 470]

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2010, which denied respondent father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order directing him to pay $1,030 per month in child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Support Magistrate properly imputed income to respondent in calculating the support obligation and there exists no *562basis to disturb the Support Magistrate’s credibility determinations particularly in light of respondent’s undocumented account of his finances *(see Matter of Sena v Sena,*65 AD3d 1244 [2009]; *see also Matter of Childress v Samuel,*27 AD3d 295 [2006]). Moreover, the record shows that respondent, who was represented by counsel at the hearing, was not deprived of the opportunity to present evidence as to his alleged business expenses. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
# L_2009048EN.01001601.xml

| 19.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 48/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 48/16

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 13 February 2009

advancing the date for the payment of the second instalment of the restructuring aid granted for the marketing year 2008/09 under Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006

(notified under document number C(2009) 798)

(2009/141/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 10(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 10(5) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 allows the Commission to advance the dates for the payment of the aids granted under the temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry established by that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 10(5) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 allows the Commission to advance the dates for the payment of the aids granted under the temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry established by that Regulation.

| (2) | Since the necessary financial resources are available in the restructuring fund referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, Member States should be given the possibility to advance the date for the payment of the second instalment of the restructuring aid granted in the marketing year 2008/09 to undertakings, growers and machinery contractors which renounced their quota as of 1 October 2008 to the date of the payment of the first instalment, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Since the necessary financial resources are available in the restructuring fund referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, Member States should be given the possibility to advance the date for the payment of the second instalment of the restructuring aid granted in the marketing year 2008/09 to undertakings, growers and machinery contractors which renounced their quota as of 1 October 2008 to the date of the payment of the first instalment,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

By way of derogation from Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, Member States may pay 100 % of the restructuring aid provided for in Article 3 of that Regulation in respect of the marketing year 2008/09 in one instalment. In such case, the payment shall be due in June 2009.

Member States shall inform the Commission by 31 March 2009 if they want to make use of the possibility provided for in the first paragraph.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 February 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 42.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 32.2


                           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 Quarterly Report of Asta Funding, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mitchell Herman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
          Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
          operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: February 10, 2004

                                             /s/ Mitchell Herman
                                             ------------------------
                                             Mitchell Herman
                                             Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Asta Funding, Inc. and will be retained by Asta Funding, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       22
#### In the Matter of Anonymous, for Admission to Practice as an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Appellant.

Submitted May 21, 2007;

decided June 12, 2007

Motion for reargument denied *[see 8*NY3d 937].

Chief Judge Kaye taking no part.
DOVE CREEK CANAL BELOW GREAT CUT DIKELatitude: 37.514Longitude: -108.59Elevation: None

DOVE CREEK CANAL BELOW GREAT CUT DIKE