alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas E. Savage, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.

On a motion for a rehearing in this case, the attention of the court for the first time being called to the fact that no final judgment is found in the record, such point not having been made in the briefs upon which the cause was submitted, the writ of error must be dismissed.

"Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Volusia county.

This case was decided at the January Term, 1882, on its merits as then submitted, and the decision is reported in 18 Fla., 970. Leave was granted at that term to file a petition for rehearing, and it was filed by Mr. John "W. Price, attorney for plaintiff in error, within the time allowed after the term.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Justice VanValkenburgh

delivered the opinion of the court on the petition:

"We have examined the petition for rehearing in this cause. The grounds, as stated in such petition, are, first, that subsequent to the trial, conviction and sentence of the plaintiff in error, and while the cause was pending in this court upon a writ of error, the law under which the indictment was found, upon which the trial was had, was repealed; second, that there is no formal final judgment against the plaintiff in error contained in the record, but only an entry upon the minutes that the sentence was pronounced by the court.

Neither of these points were made by the counsel for the plaintiff in error in the assignment of error, nor upon his brief, but the judgment was treated and argued by him as having been duly and «formally entered and presented in *562the record, and the attention of the court was in no way called to either of such, now assigned errors.

Rule 24 of the Supreme Court provides that “ the petition shall not assume any new ground or position not taken upon the argument or in the points made, upon which the cause was submitted, but must set forth concisely the particular omission or cause for which the judgment is supposed to be erroneous.”

In this case, however, inasmuch as our attention is now called to the fact that no final judgment is found in the record, the writ of error must be dismissed.

*563DECISIONS OE THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. JANUARY TERM, A. D. 1883.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Invertebrate drift in Glen Canyon 2007-

2013

Theodore Kennedy, Mike Dodrill, Adam Copp, 

Jeff Muehlbauer
Outline

 Colorado River food webs

 Glen Canyon invertebrate drift (2007-2009)

 Net clogging studies

 Invertebrate drift continued (2007-2013)
2008 Controlled Flood Restructured 

the Glen Canyon Food Web

From Cross and 

others, 2011
Production of preferred prey increased

From Cross and 

others, 2011
2008 Flood Restructured Food Web 

HFE

Key prey items increased

Favored insects

Disfavored non-insects

From Cross and 

others, 2011
Drift Period of Record

Drift measurements

(n = 208 different days)
Role of discharge and benthic 

density

 Discharge is primary control of drift over 

short time scales (within day)

 Benthic density is primary control of drift 

over long time scales (months to years)
Net clogging studies

 Drift sampling protocol (5 min samples) 

informed by sediment monitoring studies 

 DON’T CLOG YOUR NET!!!

 But some species are rare in drift samples

 Question: Can we get a better handle on rare 

species by collecting longer samples?
Net clogging studies

 Approach:

 Measure Filtration Efficiency (FE)

 FE<0.9 is bad (see Sabol and Topping 2013)

 Estimate how long until nets begin clogging 

(FE<0.9)

 Estimate error that is 

introduced when nets clog
How quickly do nets clog?
How much error is introduced when 

nets clog?

Likelihood your data are CRAP

Kennedy et al. (preliminary 

data, do not cite)
2012 Flood Did Not Restructure Food 

Web 

HFE

Why didn’t 2012 HFE

reset foodbase??

Why did foodbase

decline over time??

From Cross and 

others, 2011
2012 Flood Did Not Restructure Food 

Web 

HFE

Why didn’t 2012 HFE

reset foodbase??

Why did foodbase

decline over time??

Kennedy et al. 

(preliminary data, 

do not cite)
From Cross and 

others, 2011

2012-present

??
Mudsnail export during floods

2008: 

export of ~190 Billion mudsnails

2012: 

export of ~40 Billion mudsnails

Discharge (m3/s) or Drift (#/m3)

Kennedy et al. 

(preliminary data, 

do not cite)
Case 6:15-cv-00143-MA Document 43 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:15-cv-00143-MA Document 43 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Action Item Tracking Report 

(P:\c5amp\uc\rm\amp\twg\mtgs\06aug02\Action Item Tracking Rpt.doc)

Updated: August 2, 2006 

Action Number 

(year.mo.day-no.) 

Action Item Assigned to Due Date Status 

2004.03.30-2 

Matt Andersen will provide copies of the HBC 

Genetics report being done by Mike & Marlis 

Douglas. No further action until report is 

received. 

8/2/06: Matt said a draft of the report was 

reviewed by GCMRC and comments provided to 

the Douglases yesterday. They will revise the 

document and it should be available to the TWG 

possibly by mid-September. 

Ted Melis Sep 2006 Open 

2006.01.25-26 

The HBC AHG will perform a separate review of 

the “Humpback Chub Hatchery Evaluation: 

Prospective Refuge Facilities” report and Glen 

Knowles will provide regular updates to the 

TWG on the status of the HBC AHG’s efforts. 

5/24/06: Scope of Work is being finalized and 

Connie Keeler Foster with Dexter Fish Hatchery 

is slated to begin the work. Glen thinks they are 

on schedule and a report should be ready in the 

next fiscal year. 

8/2/06: Glen has been trying to set up a 

meeting with the AHG. He will get with the 

members at this meeting to set up a time to 

meet in late August. 

Glen Knowles Aug 30, 2006 Open 

2006.08.2-3 

Mary Barger and Lisa Leap will work with 

GCMRC staff in developing a comments and 

responses document to address TWG concerns 

on GCMRC products (budget and work plan, 

research plans, etc.) by the next TWG meeting. 

John Hamill Nov 8, 2006 Open 

2006.08.2-3 

The TWG Chair will provide the TWG’s 

concerns for updating the AMP Strategic Plan to 

the AMWG at their next meeting 

Kurt Dongoske Dec 5, 2006 Open 

2006.08.2-3 The TWG Chair will follow up on the status of 

the Roles Ad Hoc Group Report. Kurt Dongoske Dec 5, 2006 Open 

2006.08.2-3 

Ken McMullen will provide an annual report on 

work accomplished by the NPS Permitting 

position. He’ll provide that report in January. 

Ken McMullen Jan 2007 Open 

2006.08.2-3 Dennis will forward the Ancillary Projects List to 

the POAHG for action. Dennis Kubly Aug 4, 2006 Open
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Digital Lightwave, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the report), I Kenneth T. Myers, Chief Accounting Officer and Principal 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

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



|                    |  |     |  |                              
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April 5, 2007 |  |     |  |                              
|                    |  | By: |  | /s/ KENNETH T. MYERS         
|                    |  |     |  | Kenneth T. Myers             
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Accounting Officer     
|                    |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                 5
<CIK>                                             0001016151
<NAME>                                           Amplidyne, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1
<CURRENCY>                                              USD
       
<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>                                            2,039,012
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       747,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         40,510
<INVENTORY>                                         324,622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3,079,823
<PP&E>                                              606,049
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (237,494)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3,483,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               623,142
<BONDS>                                             204,421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                446
<OTHER-SE>                                        2,651,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3,483,378
<SALES>                                           2,433,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                             1,920,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2,491,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   47,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,492,861)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,493,611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.57)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-162310, 333-162009, 333-140105, 333-142013 and 333,168188 on Forms S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-64495, 333-33481, 333-149882 and 333-125863 on Forms S-8 of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. of our reports dated February 25, 2011, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.


/s/ Perry-Smith LLP
  Sacramento, California


February 25, 2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50202-50203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19338]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 03/03-0275]

Enlightenment Capital Solutions SBIC Fund, L.P.; Notice Seeking 
Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, 
Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Enlightenment Capital Solutions SBIC 
Fund, L.P., 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 950, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, a 
Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as 
amended (``the Act''), in connection with the financing of a small 
concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 
Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of 
the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 
CFR 107.730). Enlightenment Capital Solutions SBIC Fund, L.P. 
(``Licensee'') is proposing to provide financing to The Cadmus Group 
(``Company'') to support the Company's growth.
    The proposed transaction is brought within the purview of Sec.  
107.730 of the Regulations because Enlightenment Capital Solutions Fund 
II, LP, Enlightenment Capital Solutions Fund II-NQ, LP, and 
Enlightenment Capital Solutions Fund SPV I, LP, Associates of the 
Licensee by virtue of Common Control as defined at Sec.  107.50, hold a

[[Page 50203]]

total of 11% of equity interest in Company. The Associates expect to 
receive a total of $26.6 million from the proposed transaction.
    Therefore, the proposed transaction is considered self-deal 
pursuant to 13 CFR 107.730 and requires a regulatory exemption. Notice 
is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments 
on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication 
to Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

Bailey DeVries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2021-19338 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
# C_2006306EN.01002701.xml

| 15.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/27

---

Corrigendum to State aid N. 54/2001 — Italy

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 297 of 7 December 2006
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 297 of 7 December 2006

(2006/C 306/09)

On page 18, in the second line, ‘Reference number of the aid’:

for:

for:

‘N. 54/2001’,

read:

read:

‘NN 54/01’.

---
<PAGE>

                                                           EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                           ------------


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 US Global Aerospace, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Robinson, Chairman and Chief Executive 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)
          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.



                               /s/ John Robinson
                               -------------------------------------
                               By:  John Robinson
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                               February 19, 2003


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Global Aerospace, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Julie Seaman, Treasurer, Secretary and Acting 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)
          or  15(d)  of the Securities and 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.

                         /s/  Julie Seaman
                        ---------------------------------------------
                        By:  Julie Seaman
                        Treasurer, Secretary and Acting Chief Financial Officer
                        February 19, 2003



<PAGE>
# C_2006135EN.01000301.xml

| 9.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/3

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2006/C 135/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

GERMANY

Operating licences granted

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Agaircom GmbH | Guiollettstraße 54 |
| D-60325 Frankfurt/Main |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

Agaircom GmbH

Guiollettstraße 54

D-60325 Frankfurt/Main

passengers, mail, cargo

3.5.2006

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
Exhibit 16











CONSENT OF SRK CONSULTING (UK) LIMITED





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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, 2005 (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 22, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

302 

KA 09-02537 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CAMERON K. STRASSER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID W. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (LAURIE M. BECKERINK OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T.

Ward, J.), rendered June 25, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree (five

counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of five counts of burglary in the third degree

(Penal Law § 140.20). We reject defendant’s contention that County

Court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before

denying his motion to withdraw his plea. The court afforded defendant

the requisite “reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” in

support of that motion (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; see People

v Irvine, 42 AD3d 949, lv denied 9 NY3d 962), and the court did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that no further inquiry was

necessary. Defendant’s contention that the plea was coerced by

defense counsel is belied by his statements during the plea colloquy

that no one forced him to plead guilty and that he was satisfied with

the representation of defense counsel (see Irvine, 42 AD3d 949; People

v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274, lv denied 6 NY3d 757). We reject

defendant’s further contention that the court erred in refusing to

assign new counsel for the motion to withdraw his plea, inasmuch as

the record does not demonstrate that defense counsel took a position

adverse to defendant (see People v McKoy, 60 AD3d 1374, 1374-1375, lv

denied 12 NY3d 856), or that he coerced defendant into pleading guilty

(cf. People v Ulloa, 300 AD2d 60, 61-62). 

Entered: April 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18800]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons


Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF)

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice publishes the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and 2020 Cost 
of Incarceration Fee (COIF) for Federal inmates.

DATES: September 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 
First St. NW, Washington, DC 20534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, (202) 353-8248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
part 505, allows for assessment of a fee to cover the average cost of 
incarceration for Federal inmates. We calculate the cost of 
incarceration fee (COIF) by dividing the number representing the Bureau 
of Prisons (Bureau) facilities' monetary obligation (excluding 
activation costs) by the number of inmate-days incurred for the fiscal 
year, and then by multiplying the quotient by the number of days in the 
fiscal year.
    Based on FY 2019 data, the average annual COIF for a Federal inmate 
in a Federal facility in FY 2019 was $35,347 ($107.85 per day). The 
average annual COIF for a Federal inmate in a Residential Reentry 
Center for FY 2019 was $39,924 ($109.38 per day). (Please note: There 
were 365 days in FY 2019.)
    Based on FY 2020 data, the average annual COIF for a Federal inmate 
in a Federal facility in FY 2020 was $39,158 ($120.59 per day). The 
average annual COIF for a Federal inmate in a Residential Reentry 
Center for FY 2020 was $35,663 ($97.44 per day). (Please note: There 
were 365 days in FY 2020.)

Ken Hyle,
Assistant Director/General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
[FR Doc. 2021-18800 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GILBERT M. MORENO, )

)

Appellant, )

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1139

)

STATE OF FORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 2, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge.

Jean M. Henne, Special Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee and Allison C. Heim, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.