alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GUNNISON RIVER NEAR GRAND JUNCTION, COLatitude: 38.983Longitude: -108.451Elevation: 4647

GUNNISON RIVER NEAR GRAND JUNCTION, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cochetopa Pass Site Page...



Cochetopa Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sargents Mesa Site Page...



Sargents Mesa

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Taylor Site Page...



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Butte Site Page...



Butte

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbine Pass Site Page...



Columbine Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Idarado Site Page...



Idarado

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mc Clure Pass Site Page...



Mc Clure Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mesa Lakes Site Page...



Mesa Lakes

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Overland Res. Site Page...



Overland Res.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Cone Site Page...



Park Cone

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Reservoir Site Page...



Park Reservoir

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Porphyry Creek Site Page...



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Mountain Pass Site Page...



Red Mountain Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Schofield Pass Site Page...



Schofield Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Slumgullion Site Page...



Slumgullion
SAN RAFAEL RIVER NEAR CASTLE DALE, UTAHLatitude: 39.118Longitude: -110.855Elevation: 5264

SAN RAFAEL RIVER NEAR CASTLE DALE, UTAH

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Huntington Horse Site Page...



Huntington Horse

Courtesy NRCS - Go to GBRC HQ Site Page...



GBRC HQ

Courtesy NRCS - Go to GBRC Meadows Site Page...



GBRC Meadows

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mt Baldy Site Page...



Mt Baldy

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thistle Flat Site Page...



Thistle Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Joes Valley Site Page...



Upper Joes Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wrigley Creek Site Page...



Wrigley Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buck Flat Site Page...



Buck Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mammoth-Cottonwood Site Page...



Mammoth-Cottonwood

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Pine Ridge Site Page...



Red Pine Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Seeley Creek Site Page...



Seeley Creek
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2080 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 392
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2080

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2016

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING CLARK CANYON DAM.

    Notwithstanding the time period described in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12429, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as 
the ``Commission'') shall, at the request of the licensee for the 
project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance with the 
procedures of the Commission under that section, reinstate the license 
and extend the time period during which the licensee is required to 
commence construction of project works for the 3-year period beginning 
on the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 14, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 392

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2080

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 15, 2016

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
NO. 03-14-00722-CR

MARK FRUGE * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appellant *

VS. * OF THE THIRD

* SUPREME JUDICIAL

* DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS *

Appellee * AT AUSTIN TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

APPELLATE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Appellant, and files this Motion for an Extension in which to

file the Appellant’s Brief. In support of this motion, appellant shows the Court the

following:

I.

The Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Travis County, Texas of

the offense of aggravated assault. Appellant was assessed life in TDCJ. 

II.

The deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief is June 22, 2015 and Appellant has

requested two previous extensions.

III.

Attorney for the Appellant would further show the Court that he has been

ACCEPTED

03-14-00722-CR

5851114

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/26/2015 8:51:12 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/26/2015 8:51:12 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
diligent in preparing Appellee’s brief in this case. Due to a very busy docket counsel

is unable to complete the brief within the time frame. Counsel requests an extension

of time so that he may adequately prepare Appellant’s Brief. Counsel is completing

another brief in this Court at this time and is almost finished reading the record in this

case. 

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays the Court grant this Motion and extend the

deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief to July 27, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted,

ARIEL PAYAN

Attorney at Law

1012 Rio Grande

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 478-3900

(512) 472-4102 (fax)

Arielpayan@hotmail.com

 /s/ Ariel Payan 

ARIEL PAYAN

State Bar No. 00794430

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature above, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief has been delivered

to the Criminal District Attorney of said County Texas, on June 26, 2015.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated June 15, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2074 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-254382) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


June 15, 2021
#### Anthony J. D’Angelo, Respondent, v Empire Mutual Insurance Co., Appellant, and Michele Rafaniello et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Michele Rafaniello et al., Respondents, v Empire Mutual Insurance Co., Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

— In actions for judgments declaring that the defendant Empire Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Empire) is required to defend Rocco Rafaniello and indemnify all three defendants in an underlying personal injury action, Empire appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated October 18, 1985, which granted the plaintiff D’Angelo’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified by (1) deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof granting D’Angelo’s motion, (2) deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision that, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted in Empire’s favor declaring that Empire is under no obligation to either defend or indemnify Rocco Rafaniello pursuant to the terms of insurance policy No. SM-1-96-49337, and (3) deleting the third decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision granting D’Angelo’s motion only to the extent of declaring that the defendant insurer Empire shall provide coverage for the defendants Michele Rafaniello and Concetta Rafaniello in the *534event that a determination of liability on their part is predicated on a finding that negligence in their ownership, maintenance or use of the insured premises was a proximate cause of the injury. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to Empire.

Even construing the insurance policy liberally in favor of the insured and against the insurer *(see, Government Employees Ins. Co. v Kligler,*42 NY2d 863), and considering the reasonable expectations of the individuals who purchased the contract *(see, Harris v Allstate Ins. Co.,*309 NY 72, 75), Rocco Rafaniello cannot be deemed an "insured” under the policy. The clear, unambiguous language of the policy limits coverage to the two named insureds Michele and Concetta Rafaniello and other categories of persons into which their son does not fit; to expand coverage to include the son requires a rewriting of the policy, which runs counter to all the applicable legal tenets *(see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co.,*85 AD2d 851, 852). Thus the defendant insurer should not be required to defend or indemnify the son of the insureds.

The record before us does not support the determination that the insurer must as a matter of law indemnify its insureds should they be found liable pursuant to any of the allegations contained in the underlying complaint *(see, Prashker v United States Guar. Co.,*1 NY2d 584, 590, 591). Specifically, certain of those allegations assert negligent supervision of their child as a basis of the parents’ liability: such a finding would result in liability of the insureds not covered by their policy, as such a finding does not involve "ownership, maintenance or use” of the insured premises. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 189 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 273
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 189

                          [Report No. 114-356]

To extend foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2015

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                            December 1, 2015

        Additional sponsors: Ms. Brown of Florida and Ms. Kuster

                            December 1, 2015

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers, and 
                          for other purposes.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Foreclosure 
Protections Extension Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR 
              MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORTGAGES, 
              MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND EVICTION.

    Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for 
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-154; 126 Stat. 1208) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 31, 2015'' and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2016''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``January 1, 2016'' and 
        inserting ``January 1, 2017''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 273

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 189

                          [Report No. 114-356]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To extend foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 1, 2015

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
ARKANSAS RIVER AT PORTLANDLatitude: 38.388Longitude: -105.016Elevation: 5021.60

ARKANSAS RIVER AT PORTLAND

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Glen Cove Site Page...



Glen Cove

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Saint Elmo Site Page...



Saint Elmo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hayden Pass Site Page...



Hayden Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Porphyry Creek Site Page...



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to South Colony Site Page...



South Colony

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Medano Pass Site Page...



Medano Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buckskin Joe Site Page...



Buckskin Joe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rough And Tumble Site Page...



Rough And Tumble
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Perez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered July 25, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the record indicates that trial counsel presented a coherent and plausible defense, effectively cross-examined the defendant’s codefendant and the People’s witnesses, and briefly but accurately summarized the defendant’s position to the jury. We find no error in the defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress the undercover officers’ identifications of the defendant or in counsel’s failure to move to suppress the evidence seized at the time of the defendant’s arrest, as any such motions, under the facts presented here, would have inevitably been denied. Moreover, the defense counsel’s failure to make a severance motion was not erroneous, but rather, in light of the codefendant’s testimony, which if credited would have exonerated the defendant, reflected a reasonable trial strategy. The fact that that strategy ultimately proved unsuccessful cannot be equated with ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v Outler,*118 AD2d 819). The representation afforded the defendant was competent, effective and meaningful and was, therefore, constitutionally adequate *(see, People v Smith,*59 NY2d 156; *People v Baldi, supra).*Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2125 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2125

     To direct the Federal Communications Commission to revise its 
sponsorship identification rules so as to require the disclosure of the 
    names of significant donors to persons paying for or furnishing 
 broadcast matter or origination cablecasting matter that is political 
 matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of 
                           public importance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2015

   Mr. Yarmuth (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. 
Butterfield, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Michael 
   F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Ben Ray Lujaan of New 
   Mexico, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
   Welch, and Ms. Edwards) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To direct the Federal Communications Commission to revise its 
sponsorship identification rules so as to require the disclosure of the 
    names of significant donors to persons paying for or furnishing 
 broadcast matter or origination cablecasting matter that is political 
 matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of 
                           public importance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. REVISION TO SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION RULES.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Federal Communications Commission shall revise its sponsorship 
identification rules (sections 73.1212 and 76.1615 of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations) so as to provide that, in the case of broadcast 
matter or origination cablecasting matter that is political matter or 
matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public 
importance, the announcement required by such sections shall include 
the names of significant donors to the person the identity of which is 
required to be disclosed in such announcement.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 50835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19788]



[[Page 50833]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 173

September 10, 2021

Part IV





The President





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



Notice of September 9, 2021--Continuation of the National Emergency 
With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 50835]]

                Notice of September 9, 2021

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

                Consistent with section 202(d) of the National 
                Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 
                1 year the national emergency previously declared on 
                September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect 
                to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the 
                continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on 
                the United States.

                Because the terrorist threat continues, the national 
                emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the 
                powers and authorities adopted to deal with that 
                emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 
                2021. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an 
                additional year the national emergency that was 
                declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the 
                terrorist threat.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    September 9, 2021.

[FR Doc. 2021-19788
Filed 9-9-21; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3295-F1-P
#### In the Matter of DAVID H. ROTHBERG, an attorney at law.

For the order: *Mr. Jesse B. Leslie.*

For the respondent: *Mr. John E. Toolan.*

November 20, 1961.

Respondent reprimanded. Opinion reported at 36 *N. J.*146.
#### EVANS, Respondent, v. FREY et al., Appellants. SAME v. DOLAN. SAME v. KIRCHER. SAME v. FALVEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1896.)

Action by William L. Evans against Francis Frey and others, and three other cases.

E. W. S. Johnston, for appellants.

S. Hanford, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements on one appeal.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2263
ELSWORTH M. MARSH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; JESSE BROWN, Secretary, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-2482
ELSWORTH M. MARSH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge; Irene M. Keely, District Judge. (CA-95-2-3, MISC-95-5) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 14, 199623 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. No. 95-2263 affirmed and No. 95-2482 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elsworth M. Marsh, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).4 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his civil actions which claimed that he was improperly denied veteran's benefits. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 95-2263, we deny Appellant's motion to amend his petition and we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Marsh v. Department of Veterans Affairs , No. CA-95-2-3 (N.D.W. Va. May 25, 1995). In No. 95-2482, we deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss the appeal of the reasoning of the district court. Marsh v. United States, No. MISC-95-5 (N.D.W. Va. June 29, 1995). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 95-2263 - AFFIRMED No. 95-2482 - DISMISSED
#### James D. Greenfield, Appellant, v Gerald Meyers, Doing Business as McDonald’s Restaurant, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Comcast Sound Communications, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs for reasons stated in memo*538randum decision at Special Term, Rath, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.