alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southern Insect Management Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Southern Insect Management Research People







Blake  Elkins    POST DOC /ARSUserFiles/60660500/Elkins(1).jpg
 Contact Information USDA-ARSSouthern Insect Management Research Unit141 Experiment Station RoadP.O. Box 346Stoneville, MS 38776Ph: (662) 686-5267Fax: (662) 686-5421


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
AO 121 (6/90)

TO:

Register of Copyrights

Copyright Office

Library of Congress

Washington, D.C. 20559

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION OR APPEAL

REGARDING A COPYRIGHT

In Compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 508, you are hereby advised that a court action or appeal has been

filed on the following copyright(s):

ACTION APPEAL COURT NAME AND LOCATION

U.S. District Court

District of Oregon

Portland, OR DOCKET NO.

3:14−cv−01874−AC

DATE FILED

11/22/2014

PLAINTIFF

Voltage Pictures, LLC

DEFENDANT

DOE−71.59.242.21

COPYRIGHT

REGISTRATION NO. TITLE OF WORK AUTHOR OF WORK

1 PA 1−873−195, 2013 Motion Pictures Dallas Buyers Club

2 

3 

4 

5 

In the above−entitled case, the following copyrights(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

 Amendment Answer Cross Bill Other Pleading

COPYRIGHT

REGISTRATION

NO.

TITLE OF WORK AUTHOR OF WORK

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

In the above−entitled case, a final decision was rendered on the date entered below. A copy of the order or judgment

together with the written opinion, if any, of the court is attached.

COPY ATTACHED WRITTEN OPINION ATTACHED DATE RENDERED

 Order Judgment Yes No

CLERK

MARY L. MORAN

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK

C. Brost

DATE

11/24/2014

DISTRIBUTION

1) Upon initiation of action, mail

copy to Register of Copyrights

2) Upon filing of document adding

copyright(s), mail copy to Register of

Copyrights

3) Upon termination of action, mail

copy to Register of Copyrights

4) In the event of an appeal, forward

copy to Appellate Court

5) Case File Copy

Case 3:14-cv-01874-AC Document 7 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          46,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                       676
<INVENTORY>                                      6,297
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,022
<PP&E>                                           9,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,802
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           204
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,525
<SALES>                                         19,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,223
<CGS>                                            6,715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (528)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,603
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,407
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,407
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>
Draft: January 8, 2013

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program – Technical Work Group

Annual Reporting Meeting

Day One: Aquatic and Fish Science

9:30a – 11:30a 

I. Status and Trends of Native and Nonnative Fish

A. Current and past methods of estimating fish populations in the Colorado River and its tributaries (??) [9:30-

10:00]

1. Humpback Chub

Juvenile and adult populations ...

in the Colorado River (Persons, GCMRC) [10:00-10:15]

in the Little Colorado River (VanHaverbeke, USFWS) [10:15-10:30]

2. Rainbow Trout

System wide abundance and trends (Anderson, AGF) [10:30 – 10:45]

Natal origins – Glen Canyon and Marble Canyon (Yard, GCMRC) [10:45 – 11:15]

3. Other native and nonnative fishes (incl. brown trout) (Bunch, AGF) [11:15 – 11:30]

11:30a – 12:15p 

B. Stakeholder/investigator roundtable

12:15p – 1p 

Lunch

1p – 2p 

II. Status and Trends of the Foodbase

A. Colorado River (Kennedy, GCMRC)

B. Little Colorado River (Kennedy, GCMRC)

C. Bright Angel Creek (Healy, NPS)

2p – 2:25p 

III. Native – Nonnative Fish Interactions

A. Temperature effects on interactions (Ward, GCMRC)

2:25p – 3p 

IV. Biological Opinion Triggers

A. Methods and preliminary estimates (Yackulic, GCMRC) 

3p – 3:15p

break

3:15p – 4p

V. Translocation Efforts 

A. Goals, effectiveness, and future work

1. Translocation in the Little Colorado River upstream from Chute Falls (Young, USFWS)

2. Translocation in Shinumo and Havasu Creeks (Healy, NPS)
4p – 4:30p

VI. Nonnative Fish Control in Tributaries

A. goals, effectiveness and future work (Healy, NPS) 

4:30p – 5p

VII. Stakeholder/Investigator Roundtable

Evening

VIII. Predicting the Future Condition of the Colorado River Ecosystem (Stevens, TWG)

Day Two:

8a – 10a: 

I. November 2012 High Flow Experimental Release

A. Background on High Flow Experimental Releases: implementation strategy and assessment of success (Schmidt, 

GCMRC)

B. Sediment monitoring program; Sediment delivery from tributaries and sediment transport by Colorado River 

(Topping, GCMRC)

C. Preliminary findings concerning sand bar changes (Grams, GCMRC)

D. Stakeholder/Investigator Roundtable

10a – 10:30a:

break

10:30a – 12:30p:

II. Tribal Monitoring

A. Hopi

B. Hualapai

C. Southern Paiute

D. Zuni

E. Stakeholder/Investigator Roundtable

12:30p – 1:30p:

lunch

1:30p – 2:30p:

III. The Riparian Ecosystem

A. Status and trends of vegetation (Ralston, GCMRC)

B. Status and trends of tamarisk beetle (Chaudry, Makarick, NPS)

2:45p – 3:45p

IV. Archaeological and Geomorphic Studies

A. On-going studies (Fairley, GCMRC)

B. Future work (Draut, USGS)

3:45p – 4:30p

V. Stakeholder/Investigator/GCMRC Roundtable – “Long-Term Monitoring and Research about the 

Colorado River Ecosystem: Where Do We Go from Here?”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Brock, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), rendered July 12, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The complainant was confronted by three men, including the defendant, while walking on Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn. One of the perpetrators, not the defendant, told the complainant, "I got a gun. You move I’ll blow your head off”. Thereafter, the defendant quickly grabbed two gold chains from the complainant’s neck and ran down the street. The complainant gave chase for a short distance, without losing sight of him. The defendant then proceeded behind the steps of a building. When the defendant reappeared, he was holding a machete in his hand. At this point, the complainant requested that the defendant return the stolen jewelry. However, the defendant then threatened the complainant, as follows: "run, run, or else I’ll chop your foot off”. Needless to say, the complainant did not wait to see whether the defendant would carry out the threat.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court should have instructed the jury not to consider the defendant’s use of the machete as evidence of the force needed to convert a larcenous taking into robbery. The fulcrum of the defendant’s argument is that the threat of force did not occur "immediately after the taking”, as required by Penal Law § 160.00 (1). We disagree. Under the circumstances of the case at bar, the jury was presented with a clear question of fact as to whether the defendant’s threat of force occurred within the time frame denominated by Penal Law § 160.00 (1), to wit, "immediately after the taking” *(see, People v Dekle,*83 AD2d 522, *affd*56 NY2d 835). Inasmuch as the complainant chased the defendant immediately following the theft of his property, the jury’s determination as to the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the second degree was wholly supported by the evidence.

With respect to the *Sandoval*ruling, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to use part of the defendant’s prior criminal record for impeachment purposes. It is well settled that the mere fact that a defendant *402has committed crimes similar to the one in issue will not preclude the prosecutor from using that evidence for impeachment purposes *(see, People v Rahman,*62 AD2d 968, *affd*46 NY2d 882; *People v Gonzalez,*111 AD2d 870, 871). Finally, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, the undersigned Jack (J.D.) Draper, President and Chief Executive Officer of FIRSTPLUS Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

 

1.             The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (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.

 

 

| Dated:  July 11, 2006 | /s/ Jack (J.D.) Draper |
|-----------------------|------------------------|

Jack (J.D.) Draper

President and Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive Officer
#### Paula Juan CHAVEZ; Esmeralda Chavez Juan; Elena Chavez Juan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74886.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*653Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 27, 2007.

Elsa I. Martinez, Esq., Martinez Golds-by & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Keeney, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Paula Juan Chavez and her two daughters, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to re*654open as untimely because it was not filed until May 9, 2005, more than two years after the BIA issued its final order of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (requiring that motions to reopen be filed within 90 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal).

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contentions regarding equitable tolling because, contrary to petitioners’ contention, they failed to argue before the BIA that equitable tolling should excuse their untimely filing and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

Petitioners further contend the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider the evidence presented with their motion and by failing to explain its refusal to invoke its *sua sponte*authority to reopen proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review these contentions because the BIA’s decision whether to invoke its *sua sponte*authority is committed to its unfettered discretion. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002) (internal citations omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
GCDAMP Triennial Budg

and Work Plan Process

October 19, 2016

BAHG Report

Many members
Proposed Motion: 

The TWG has reviewed the Triennial Budget and Work Plan 

requested by the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science 

2014), and recommends that the AMWG approve the docum

GCDAMP budget guidance.

Consider October 6 version sent out by Linda, and as modif

Randy Seaholm
May 7, 2014 memo

provides direction

July 8, 2016 memo

underscores current direction
Background 

.... Its on the WIKI!!!http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title

• May 6, 2010 original document, biennial budget

• Provided new direction on section 2.7 by DOI March 20, 2

• Castle memo May 7, 2014 to develop TWP/process

• Been working on this for years since, modified in large par

Schmidt

• Re‐boot this last year with BAHG to finish it up

• BAHG revised and forwarded to TWG for review by consen

• However, a few issues remain, two versions sent out
Primary Changes to 2010 BWP docum

Minor Major• Editorial updates • Move to TWP from B• Fine tuning process after a few • Revised section 2.7 t

budget cycles, roles etc year 2 review and re

• Solidified Annual Reporting • Funding source ident

Meeting as a key component projects to dam ope

• Removed mid‐year budget (revised doc) reporting

• Removed the hydrograph

process
TWP Overview: section 1.0

• The Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) and TWG will work with Reclamation and GCMRC to 

TWP according to the process described in Table 1;

• The TWG will develop a TWP recommendation for AMWG consideration and recomme

Secretary of Interior (SOI);

• The TWP will include budget spreadsheets, that identify funding source and work plan

three years;

• The GCDAMP will recommend annual budgets to the SOI, based on the TWP, as require

budgetary policy;

• Modifications to the budget and work plan should adhere to the criteria described in S

• Annual fiscal reporting on expenditures and annual progress reports will be provided t

GCMRC and Reclamation; and

• The GCDAMP will hold an annual reporting meeting in January (targeted month).

1i.e., should we engage in adaptive management!
Budget Process Components: section 2

2.1 Budget Principles (change)2.2 Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG), input from other ad 

2.3 Annual Reporting Meeting

2.4 Fiscal Reporting Including Carry Over

2.5 Budget Spreadsheets and Work Plan2.6 Roles of GCDAMP Entities (edit)2.7 Criteria for Review and Revisions of the Budget and 

(change)

1i.e., should we engage in adaptive management!
Section 2.7 Criteria For Review and Re

Three Types of Changes:

• Scientific Requirement or Merit

• Administrative Needs• New Initiatives
Table 1:

the processMonth bymonthWhere/whencan you have

input?



Also Year 2 and Year 3 activities
Proposed Motion: 

The TWG has reviewed the Triennial Budget and Work Plan 

requested by the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science 

2014), and recommends that the AMWG approve the docum

GCDAMP budget guidance.

Consider October 6 version sent out by Linda, and as modif

Randy Seaholm

1Strategic Plan Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program approved by AMWG on January 17, 2002
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ROHILLCO BUSINESS SERVICES LLC

and GAP FUNDING COMPANY LLC,

No. 3:15-cv-02270-SB

Plaintiffs, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

 Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On June 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [42], recommending that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [36] 

should be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty should be DISMISSED 

with prejudice. Neither party objected to the F&R.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the 

court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are 

addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review 

the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to 

accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendations and ADOPT the 

F&R [42] as my own opinion. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [36] is GRANTED, and 

Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2017. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge
#### John Ledes et al., Appellants, v Advertising Checking Bureau, Inc., Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on or about August 12, 1985, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The motion by defendant-respondent to dismiss the aforesaid appeal is denied. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Presidential Documents 48481 

Proclamation 10240 of August 26, 2021 

Honoring the Victims of the Attack in Kabul, Afghanistan 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

As a mark of respect for the U.S. service members and other victims killed 

in the terrorist attack on August 26, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan, by the 

authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the 

flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House 

and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval 

stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District 

of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, August 30, 2021. I also direct that the flag shall be 

flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, 

legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military 

facilities and naval vessels and stations. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-sixth 

day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and 

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred 

and forty-sixth. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18925 

Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F1–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC2BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
# C_2006135EN.01000601.xml

| 9.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/6

---

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 135/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

GREECE

Operating licences granted

Category A:   Operating licences without 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SKY WINGS AIRLINES S.A | A Papandreou, 108 |
| GR-16674 Glifada |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

SKY WINGS AIRLINES S.A

A Papandreou, 108

GR-16674 Glifada

passengers, mail, cargo

31.3.2006

---

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

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT JESSIE MORALES

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 102

- C R

Appeal from

143 rd District C ourt

of Ward C ounty, Texas

(TC# 19

- 09

- 06141

- CRW )

O R D E R

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

the brief until December 31 , 20 20

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE PRO SE’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

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

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

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 st d ay of December , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.