alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Addressing the concerns listed in the TWG minority report 

Consolidated Minority Response to GCMRC 

Norm Henderson 

April 2, 2007, TWG Meeting 

Minority Recommendation 

1. AMWG Recommendation (12/5/2006) - 

AMWG recommends that GCMRC address the concerns listed in the minority report and bring 

the revised MRP back to AMWG in summer for further consideration 

2. Minority concerns break down into two basic issues 

• Key resource issues should be added or better focused 

• Incomplete process for SSQ development (not all RINs included and unclear priority 

setting) 

3. December/January - GCMRC met individually with members of the minority group to clarify 

these issues and suggest resolution 

• Crosswalk table (showing relationship between RINs and SSQs) 

• Identify gaps 

• Develop additional SSQs to fill gaps 

• Clarify/add focus on critical resource areas 

• Minority would review products and provide input 

4. March/2007 met to discuss a consolidated minority view 

• GCMRC should proceed with the general agreement reached with individual minority 

members 

• GCMRC should develop a timeline to address the above needs in time to get revised 

MRP to the AMWG by its summer/fall meeting
Merrill Schneider, OSB #77336 

merrillschneider@schneiderlaw.com 

Schneider Kerr & Robichaux 

PO Box 14490 

Portland, Oregon 97293 

Phone: 503-255-9092 

Fax: 503-255-9145 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PAMELA CRANE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANCY BERRYHILL, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

6:15-CV-2199-YY 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

The court finds and orders an attorney fee of $29,442.75 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

The attorney fee of $7,992.62 allowed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act will be 

refunded to Plaintiff upon counsel’s receipt of the allowed 406(b) fee awarded. 

Dated this _______ day of ____________________, 2018. 

________________________________ 

Youlee You 

United States Magistrate Judge 

5th February 

/s/Youlee Yim You
FY06 Draft budget FY06 Draft budget 

and work plan and work plan
Assumptions Assumptions

• This is a draft that highly values This is a draft that highly values 

continuation of key monitoring data continuation of key monitoring data

• It addresses AMWG priorities It addresses AMWG priorities• It is not ideal, but it reflects fiscal re

It is not ideal, but it reflects fiscal re
Bottom line Bottom line

$4,275,027 $4,275,027 Available funds Available funds

$661,650 $661,650 GCMRC admin costs GCMRC admin costs

$2,168,420 $2,168,420 GCMRC salaries GCMRC salaries

$1,010,566 $1,010,566 USGS overhead (15%)* USGS overhead (15%)*

$773,752 $773,752 BOR admin costs BOR admin costs

FY05 Power revenue FY05 Power revenue funding + CPI ( funding + CPI (2.5%)

$8,889,415 $8,889,415

*10% to HQ, 5% to GCMRC
Rationale for developing bu

Rationale for developing bu

• Start with core monitoring needs Start with core monitoring needs• Fund program areas relative to the 2

Fund program areas relative to the 

AMWG priorities: AMWG priorities: HBC, Cultural, Flo

HBC, Cultural, Flo

Sediment & TCD Sediment & TCD
Total FY06 AMP Power Revenues Total FY06 AMP Power Revenues

$8,889,415 $8,889,415

GCMRC Administration, 

1,421,452

BOR costs, 773,752

GCMRC Physical Sci

1,408,000

GCMRC DASA, 1,181,395

GCMRC Biology, 2,018,250

GCMRC Sociocultural, 

1,101,907

GCMRC Logistics & 

Survey, 508,990

GCMRC Information 

Office, 475,669
STATE of DELAWARE
                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
                         CERTIFICATE of INCORPORATION of
                            US GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC.

First: The Board of Directors of US Global Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, acting by written consent in accordance with Section 141(f) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law, duly adopted resolutions setting forth the
proposed First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation (the "Certificate") of said Corporation, declaring said amendment
to be in the best interests of the Corporation and its stockholders. The
resolutions setting forth the proposed amendment are substantially as follows:

      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Article First of the Amended and
      Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended and
      restated in its entirety to read as follows:

            FIRST: The name of the Corporation is US Global Nanospace, Inc.

      RESOLVED FURTHER, that Article Second of the Amended and Restated
      Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended and restated in
      its entirety to read as follows:

            Second: That the address of the registered office of the Corporation
            in the State of Delaware is located at 15 East North Street, City of
            Dover, County of Kent, 19901.

Second: That concurrently therewith, acting by written consent, the holder of at
least a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation's
capital stock consented to the foregoing amendment in accordance with Section
228(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

Third: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

Fourth: That the capital of said Corporation shall not be reduced under or by
reason of said amendment.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Corporation has caused this First
Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by a
duly authorized officer as of July 21, 2003.


                                       By: /s/ John Robinson
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          John Robinson, Chief Executive Officer
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RONALD D. KIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. CLAYTON; SGT. ESPINOZA,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-1965-SU

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on June 4, 2020. ECF 116. Judge Sullivan recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Amend should be DENIED, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED, 

and the case should be DISMISSED. No party filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files an objection to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 

“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Case 2:15-cv-01965-SU Document 118 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], 

intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are 

filed.”); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding 

that the court must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection 

is made, “but not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation for clear 

error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS

Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 116. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

(ECF 112) is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 100) is 

GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of June, 2020.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01965-SU Document 118 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 2
PROPOSED AGENDA 

Technical Work Group 

October 2, 1997 

La Quinta Inn 

 9:30 Welcome 

 Administrative Business 

 Charge from AMWG 

 Beach Maintenance and Building Flows FY 1998 

 Annual Report to Congress 

 Monitoring and Research Plans FY 1998 

 Resource Management Questions 

 Management Objecvtives 

 Action Items 

October 3, 1997

 3:30 Wrap up / Agenda items for next meeting 

 4 p.m. Adjourn
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          18,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (524)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,289
<PP&E>                                           9,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,244)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,418
<SALES>                                         12,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,686
<CGS>                                            8,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   339
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,188)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Schedule for the First Quarter 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001000779
<NAME>                         Consolidated Delivery & Logistics, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $1.00
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     $1.00
<CASH>                                            1,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,731)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,250
<PP&E>                                          14,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8,437)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,181
<BONDS>                                          2,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,270
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,278
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   429
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,145
<INCOME-TAX>                                       435
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       710
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .10
        



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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          32,666
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,456)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,627
<PP&E>                                          45,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,131,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,890
<BONDS>                                        579,027
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              341
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     427,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,131,387
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               275,712
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,655
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,859
<DISCONTINUED>                                   8,510
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,369
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JASON ANDREW WRIGHT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF OREGON, 

Respondent. 

JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge. 

Case No. 2:14-cv-02058-JE 

ORDER 

This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus case comes before the 

court on petitioner's Motion for Dismissal of All Legal Charges 

(#25), Objection to Court's Denying Petitioner's Motion for 

Reconsideration (#26), and Objection to Granting an Extension of 

Time (#27). Petitioner claims that counsel for respondent has not 

attempted to confer with him about its Motion to Substitute Party 

(#12) and Motion for Extension of Time (#20), and has not served 

him with those Motions. 

As an initial matter, and as the court has previously advised 

petitioner, a party submitting a written motion to the court is 

1 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-02058-JE Document 28 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 2
required to serve the motion upon every party to the lawsuit. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 5(a). Such motions must also include a certificate of 

service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (1). While petitioner includes 

certificates of service with his Motions, he does not certify that 

he served his Motions on counsel for respondent. As such, the 

Motions are denied without prejudice. 

The court also notes that although petitioner claims 

respondent never notified him regarding its Motions, the record 

reveals that respondent did include certificates of service with 

its Motion to Substitute Party and Motion for Extension of Time 

where counsel certified that she mailed copies of the Motions to 

petitioner. 

Respondent is requested to note that petitioner is not an 

incarcerated individual for purposes of conferral. 

IT IS 

DATED 

2 - ORDER 

SO ORDERED. 

this iq day of June, 2015. 

~1~ United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-02058-JE Document 28 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ana Maria FLORES-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50005.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 12, 2007.

Filed April 18, 2007.

*701Eugene S. Litvinoff, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Heather R. Rogers, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant, Ana Maria Flores-Mendoza, appeals the sentence imposed following her conviction for harboring illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (v)(II). Following her guilty plea, the district court sentenced Flores-Mendoza to eight months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. This sentence was based, in part, on the court’s decision to impose a three-level increase of the offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(2)(A) because Flores-Mendoza was harboring between six and twenty-four unlawful aliens. On appeal, Flores-Mendoza argues that her sentence should be set aside because, in determining the appropriateness of the three-level enhancement, the district court improperly placed the burden on her to disprove facts in the Presentence Report (“PSR”) related to the number of illegal aliens she was harboring. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In the proceedings below, Flores-Mendoza did not specifically object to any statement in the PSR related to the number of aliens. If she had done so, it is clear from the record that the court would have granted an evidentiary hearing and adjudicated the factual dispute. Instead, Flores-Mendoza’s position seems to be that, because she did not concede the accuracy of information in the PSR, the district court improperly relied on it in determin*702ing that she was harboring eleven unlawful aliens. We reject this contention.

Factual statements in the PSR are not in dispute simply because the defendant refuses to concede them. *See United States v. Ameline,*400 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir.2005) (information in a PSR is disputed when “a defendant makes a timely specific objection to the factual accuracy of [the] assertion ...”). Because Flores-Mendoza did not raise a specific objection to the factual accuracy of information in the PSR related to the number of aliens, the district court properly relied on it in determining by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts underlying the offense level enhancement had been established. *See United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1106 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); *United States v. Marin-Cuevas,*147 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Tara Blumstein et al., Respondents, v Half Hollow Hills Central School District, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 426]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 6, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The then-infant plaintiff, Tara Blumstein (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), and her mother, suing derivatively, commenced this action after the injured plaintiff, a member of her school’s gymnastics team, allegedly sustained personal injuries at a team practice. The injured plaintiff was completing a maneuver when the heel of her foot landed between two mats. Several mats had *703been fastened together with Velcro, but allegedly had become separated; the injured plaintiff alleged that they had been fastened in an improper manner. She testified at a deposition that, although she had been practicing for about 20 minutes when the accident occurred, she had not seen any gaps between the mats. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the injured plaintiff assumed the risk of injury. The Supreme Court denied the motion, the defendant appeals, and we affirm.

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff, by participating in the gymnastics practice, assumed the risk of being injured in the manner in which she allegedly was injured here. The defendant’s moving papers failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the allegedly dangerous condition caused by improperly secured mats did not unreasonably increase the risk of injury inherent in gymnastics *(see Charles v Uniondale School Dist. Bd. of Educ.,*91 AD3d 805 [2012]; *Alqurashi v Party of Four, Inc.,*89 AD3d 1047, 1047-1048 [2011]; *compare Palladino v Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist.,*84 AD3d 1194 [2011], *Bruno v Town of Hempstead,*248 AD2d 576 [1998], *with Bocelli v County of Nassau,*93 AD3d 747 [2012]). Since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to relief, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers *(see Charles v Uniondale School Dist. Bd. of Educ.,*91 AD3d at 806). Florio, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.