alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Lake Powell and GCD ReWater-Quality UpdateTWG Meeting Oct 2-3, 2007Bill Vernieu, GCMRC
Lake Powell Surface Elevation 

Reservoir Elevation + Inflows = Re
Lake Powell Conditions 6/9/

Summer 2007 Summer 2006 

•Hypolimnetic DO concentrations (blue line) because of freshening from winter underflow •Large subsurface DO peak shows increase•Low Dissolved Oxygen concentrations in 20
Glen Canyon Dam Release Water Q

N

OTE: Specific Conductance in m

S * 10

T (deg C) - D.O. (mg/L)

 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

101112131415161718

01JAN07 01FEB07 01MAR07 01APR07 01MAY07 01JUN07 01JUL07 01AUG07 01SEP07 01OCT07

S.C. (mS/cm*10) - pH

5.05.56.06.57.07.58.08.59.09.5

10.010.511.011.512.012.513.0
Glen Canyon Dam Release Tem
Colorado R above Little Col
#### Jose R. David et al., Appellants, v Cinthya Z. Caceres, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 159]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Daily, J.), dated June 17, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Jose R. David, on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiffs Marcos Zelaya and Edy R. David is dismissed, as those plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the order appealed from *{see*CFLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Jose R. David is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff Jose R. David.

The defendant met her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Jose R. David (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The injured plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that as a result of the subject accident, the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine sustained certain injuries. The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to those regions did not *991constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Rodriguez v Huerfano,*46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]), and, in any event, were not caused by the subject accident *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, the injured plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine constituted serious injuries under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]). Furthermore, the injured plaintiff, who, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, provided a reasonable explanation for a cessation of his medical treatment *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]), also submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine were caused by the subject accident *(see Park v Shaikh,*82 AD3d 1066, 1067 [2011]; *Compass v GAE Transp., Inc.,*79 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2010]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the injured plaintiff. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEITH PUGH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 524 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Action Item Tracking Report 

(U:\c5amp\uc\rm\amp\twg\mtgs\16jun01\Action Items.docx)

 Updated: June 1, 2016 

Action Number 

(year.mo.dayno.) 

Action Item 

* Additional information in Meeting Minutes Assigned to Due Date Status 

2015:10-20-21(1) 10/20/15: The AMWG passed the following motion 

at their August 2015: The AMWG requests the 

Secretary’s Designee direct GCMRC to conduct a 

technical review of the Lees Ferry Recreational 

Trout Fishery Management Recommendations and 

report its findings to the TWG; and directs the TWG 

to evaluate the GCMRC review at its October 2015 

meeting, and report its findings to AMWG at its 

February 2016 meeting. 

 The Trout Ad Hoc Group was created to 

address the above report and make a 

recommendation to the TWG at its January 

2016 meeting. 

2/24/16: The AMWG passed the following motion: 

The AMWG accepts the December 9, 2015, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

Technical Memo (Memo) of the Lees Ferry Trout 

Fishery Management Recommendations 

(Recommendations) subject to the following: 

1. Any actions resulting from the 

Recommendations must be fully consistent with the 

“Law of the River” and Department of the Interior 

(DOI) policy considerations. 

2. Recommendations that fall under the purview 

of water and natural resource management 

agencies such as Bureau of Reclamation, National 

Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and 

AMWG Tribes will require additional evaluation 

among these management agencies within the AMP 

for further consideration. 

3. Recommendations that address dam 

operations are expected to be considered and 

evaluated in light of the ongoing Long-Term 

Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

In addition, the AMWG directs the TWG to consider 

the Recommendations with the caveats above and 

the Memo as work plans and budgets are 

developed or reviewed. 

4/19/16: New Charge to the TAHG: The TAHG will 

consider the Lees Ferry Trout Fishery Management 

Recommendations and the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center Technical memo 

with the caveats per the AMWG motion on 

02/24/2016, as work plans and budgets are being 

developed and make a recommendation to the 

TWG through the Budget Ad Hoc Group. 

TWG Jan 28, 2016 Open 

1
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00461-CV

WILLI "FREE I" GARNER, T.D.C.J. NO. 606635

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL.

On appeal from the

36th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-13-1056-CV-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 16, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES, L.P. FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                             976
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      602
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (100)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,478
<PP&E>                                          83,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,940)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              988
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,649
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,479
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (1,657)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (895)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,927
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,927
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report
on Form 10-QSB pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities
law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation as of
and for the three months ended March 31, 2007.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                       
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul C. Hudson                                    
|                   |  |     |  | Paul C. Hudson                                        
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer Broadway Financial
Corporation
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Samuel Sarpong                                    
|                   |  |     |  | Samuel Sarpong                                        
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer Broadway Financial
Corporation
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2071 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2071

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 1998

      Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend a quarterly financial report program administered by the 
                         Secretary of Commerce.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT PROGRAM.

    Section 4(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to amend title 13, United 
States Code, to transfer responsibility for the quarterly financial 
report from the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of Commerce, 
and for other purposes'', approved January 12, 1983 (Public Law 97-454; 
13 U.S.C. 91 note), is amended by striking ``September 30, 1998'' and 
inserting ``September 30, 2005''.

            Passed the Senate September 10, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Camille Brennan et al., Respondents, v Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc., et al., Appellants.

The order appealed from, in effect, denied a motion to resettle a judgment in its substantive or decretal provisions. Such an order is not appealable *(see, Blume v Blume,*124 AD2d 771 [decided herewith]; *Valenti Elec. Co. v Power Line Constructors,*123 AD2d 604; *Men’s World Outlet v Estate of Steinberg,*101 AD2d 854; *Katz v Katz,*13 AD2d 529). Even if the appeal were properly here, however, the order sought to be reviewed would be affirmed, since, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the judgment dated March 4, 1985, and entered April 1, 1985, substantially conforms to the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in this case *(see, Brennan v Breezy Point Coop.,*63 NY2d 1022). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### EINSTEIN v. CLIMAX CYCLE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1897.)

Action by George Einstein against the Climax Cycle Company. Eli M. Cohen, a junior attaching creditor, moved to vacate the prior attachment. For decision on said motion, see 41 N. Y. Supp. 837. Harold Nathan, for appellant. Stillman F. Kneeland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion made by a junior attaching creditor to set aside an attachment procured by the plaintiff. The ground upon which the attachment was vacated was the insufficiency of the affidavit upon which it was granted. That affidavit was made by the assignee of the claim sued upon, and he asserted the facts constituting the cause of action to be within his own knowledge, but did not disclose his means of knowledge, nor give any information as to how that alleged knowledge was obtained. The case, therefore, comes within the ruling made in Hoormann v. Cycle Co., 9 App. Div. 579, 41 N. Y. Supp. 710, and the order should be affirmed, with costs.
#### Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. *v.*William Prezioso

*J. Roger Shull,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Angelo P. Costa,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued June 3

decided June 3, 1975

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
# C_2009079EN.01000401.xml

| 2.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5482 — GSN/FUN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 79/04

On 26 March 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5482. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5482. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
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
 Southwest Watershed Research Center: Tucson, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About SWRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Tucson, Arizona SWRC People & Locations







Chad D Radford
                        Southwest Watershed Research Center

                        




                        
                        Hydrologic Technician
                        Phone: (520) 457-3321
                        
                        
                        Fax: (520) 457-9388(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sophia B., Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 571]

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), rendered March 21, 2011, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Chin-Brandt, J.), upon a finding that she violated a condition thereof, upon her admission, and imposing a sentence of *772imprisonment upon her previous conviction of robbery in the second degree. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Lackmann Food Service, Inc., et al., Appellants, v E & S Vending Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover on promissory notes and guarantees of payment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered June 7, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs’ time to serve a complaint is extended until 20 days after the service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, and the defendants shall serve their answer within 20 days after service of the complaint.

The plaintiffs were not holders in due course. Consequently, the defendants’ counterclaim, alleging failure of consideration and lack of mutuality because all disputes and questions under the agreements were to be determined by the plaintiffs, presented a viable claim which arose from the underlying transaction. This claim is inseparable from the plaintiffs’ *367cause of action. Under these circumstances, summary judgment was properly denied *(see, Torres & Leonard v Select Professional Realties,*118 AD2d 467; *Beninati v Hanley, 95*AD2d 816; *Ssangyong [U.S.A.J Inc. v Sung Ae Yoo,*88 AD2d 572; *Dorman v Cohen,*66 AD2d 411; *Chisholm Ryder Co. v Munro Games, 58*AD2d 972; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3213:17, p 843). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)
  (a)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the Report) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 November
23, 2005
    

/s/ Charles R. WaldronCharles R. WaldronSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### William A. ANDERSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7045.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 28, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of William A. Anderson’s unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*995(1) The motion is granted.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
Rel: August 23, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

SPECIAL TERM, 2024

SC-2023-0702

Steven Mark Hayden v. Western Steel, Inc., and William B. Cashion 

(Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court: CV-17-900189).

STEWART, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Shaw, Acting C.J.,* and Sellers and Mendheim, JJ., and Windom, 

Kellum, and McCool, Special Justices,* concur.

Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., recuse 

themselves.

*Because five members of the Supreme Court, including the Chief 

Justice, recused themselves, on March 7, 2024, Acting Chief Justice Shaw 

appointed Presiding Judge Windom, Judge Kellum, and Judge McCool, 

of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to serve as Special Justices in this 

appeal.