alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RIO GRANDE ABOVE TRINCHERA CREEK NEAR LA SAUSESLatitude: 37.317Longitude: -105.743Elevation: None

RIO GRANDE ABOVE TRINCHERA CREEK NEAR LA SAUSES

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



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

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



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

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



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit
USGS 11510700 - KLAMATH RIVER BLW JOHN C.BOYLE PWRPLNT, NR KENO, ORLatitude: 42.085Longitude: -122.073Elevation: 3274.82

USGS 11510700 - KLAMATH RIVER BLW JOHN C.BOYLE PWRPLNT, NR KENO, OR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Annie Springs Site Page...



Annie Springs

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



Crazyman Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Swan Lake Mtn Site Page...



Swan Lake Mtn

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



Sun Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Billie Creek Divide Site Page...



Billie Creek Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chemult Alternate Site Page...



Chemult Alternate

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cold Springs Camp Site Page...



Cold Springs Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fourmile Lake Site Page...



Fourmile Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quartz Mountain Site Page...



Quartz Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sevenmile Marsh Site Page...



Sevenmile Marsh

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summer Rim Site Page...



Summer Rim

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



Taylor Butte
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132494 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132494 

 COA: 261725 

Kalamazoo CC: 04-001484-FH 

GLORIA MARIE AGUILAR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1872 

To authorize Energy Frontier Research Centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To authorize Energy Frontier Research Centers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall carry out a 

5 program to provide awards, on a competitive, merit-re6 viewed basis, to multi-institutional collaborations or other 

7 appropriate entities to conduct fundamental and use-in8 spired energy research to accelerate scientific break9 throughs related to needs identified in— 

10 (1) the Grand Challenges report of the Depart11 ment’s Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1872 IH

1 (2) the report of the Department’s Basic En2 ergy Sciences Advisory Committee entitled ‘‘From 

3 Quanta to the Continuum: Opportunities for 

4 Mesoscale Science’’; 

5 (3) the Basic Energy Sciences Basic Research 

6 Needs workshop report; or 

7 (4) other relevant reports identified by the Di8 rector. 

9 (b) COLLABORATIONS.—A collaboration receiving an 

10 award under this subsection may include multiple types 

11 of institutions and private sector entities. 

12 (c) SELECTION AND DURATION.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—A collaboration under this 

14 subsection shall be selected for a period of 5 years. 

15 An Energy Frontier Research Center already in ex16 istence and supported by the Director on the date of 

17 enactment of this Act may continue to receive sup18 port for a period of 5 years beginning on the date 

19 of establishment of that center. 

20 (2) REAPPLICATION.—After the end of the pe21 riod described in paragraph (1), an awardee may re22 apply for selection for a second period of 5 years on 

23 a competitive, merit-reviewed basis. 

24 (3) TERMINATION.—Consistent with the exist25 ing authorities of the Department, the Director may 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1872 IH

1 terminate an underperforming center for cause dur2 ing the performance period. 

3 (d) NO FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION.—No funding 

4 provided pursuant to this subsection may be used for the 

5 construction of new buildings or facilities. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>

  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
  OF  OPERATIONS  FOR THE THREE  MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
  ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                            204
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      43
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        5
<INVENTORY>                                                        29
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  385
<PP&E>                                                          1,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    919
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  1,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             694
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            3
<OTHER-SE>                                                        352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    1,049
<SALES>                                                            59
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  570
<CGS>                                                              43
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  157
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   233
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      233
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     .07



</TABLE>
#### 135 West 36th LLC et al., Respondents, v World City America Inc. et al., Defendants, and Charles Gallagher et al., Appellants.

Submitted February 26, 2007;

decided May 8, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of appellants’ cross motion for disqualification of respondents’ counsel, dismissed upon the ground that such part of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,5666.62428
Technical Work Group Meeting 

FINAL AGENDA

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting

Bureau of Indian Affairs

2 Arizona Center, 400 N. 5

th St., Phoenix AZ

12

th Floor, Conference Rooms A&B

October 1, 2003

START

TIME  TOPIC PERSON PURPOSE  MATERIALS

9:30 a.m. Welcome and

Administrative

Norm Henderson 1. Introductions and

Determination of Quorum 

2. Review Action Items from 

June 30­July 1, 2003 Meeting

3. Approval of June 30­July 1, 2003 Meeting Minutes 

4. Meeting Priorities

Agenda

Action Items/

Draft Minutes

9:40 a.m. Remote SensingInitiative Phil Davis  Information and Discussion

10:30 a.m.

Fine Grained

Sediment/Camping

Beach Monitoring Using

Remote Sensing

Mike Breedlove Information and Discussion

11:05 a.m. 2­Dimensional Flow

Modeling Steve Wiele Information and Discussion

Reports

Noon LUNCH

1:00 p.m. Lee’s Ferry Stranding Wendy Batham  Information and Discussion

1:15 pm 

Mechanical Removal

Update Mike Yard Information and Discussion

2:10 p.m. NPS Non­Native Fish

Control

Bill Leibfried

Norm Henderson

Information and Discussion

2:50 pm. TCD Update Dennis Kubly  Information and Discussion

Reports

3:10 p.m. BREAK

3:20 p.m. HBC Comprehensive

Plan

Glen Knowles 

Sam Spiller 

Information and Discussion

4:25 p.m. Tribal Consultation PlanUpdate Nancy Coulam  Information and Discussion

4:45 p.m. GCMRC Science

Symposium Update

Jeff Lovich Information and Discussion

Reports

5 p.m. Wrap­up and Adjourn Norm Henderson
Technical Work Group Meeting 

FINAL AGENDA

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting

Bureau of Indian Affairs

2 Arizona Center, 400 N. 5

th St., Phoenix AZ

12

th Floor, Conference Rooms A&B

October 2, 2003

START

TIME  TOPIC PERSON PURPOSE  MATERIALS

8 a.m. Welcome and

Administrative

Norm Henderson Introductions 

Determination of Quorum

Agenda

8:05 a.m. Core Monitoring

Development Steve Gloss  Information and Discussion

8:50 a.m.

­ Long Range Planning

­ TWG & Ad Hoc Group

Roles 

Jeff Lovich Information and Discussion

Reports

10:15 a.m. B R E A K

10:25 a.m. FY 2005 Budget

Development

Jeff Lovich

Dennis Kubly 

Information and Discussion

11:45 a.m. Wrap­up and Adjourn­ next TWG Meeting

and agenda

Norm Henderson Discussion
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                           <C>                           <C>                                         
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1997                  JAN-01-1996              
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1997                   MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                     7,408                        19,402
<SECURITIES>                              83,441                        56,927
<RECEIVABLES>                             41,619                        34,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                (850)                         (554)
<INVENTORY>                                    0                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         140,254                       113,746
<PP&E>                                    38,437                        31,991
<DEPRECIATION>                            19,373                        15,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           161,791                       130,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     25,958                        19,911
<BONDS>                                    2,600                         2,907
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                             0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                             0
<COMMON>                                     210                           205
<OTHER-SE>                               130,816                       106,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             161,791                       130,809
<SALES>                                    7,285                         8,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          45,058                        37,345
<CGS>                                      5,563                         6,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             40,372                        32,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             165                            25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            17                            34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            5,666                         5,587
<INCOME-TAX>                               2,266                         2,234
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        3,400                         3,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                             0
<CHANGES>                                      0                             0
<NET-INCOME>                               3,400                         3,353
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .16                           .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .16                           .16
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Hyperion Solutions Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David W. Odell, 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 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: February 9, 2004

/s/ DAVID W. ODELL

David W. Odell
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Schroeder, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered November 16, 1982, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Zelman, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no reason to disturb Criminal Term’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant’s request to suppress his statements on the ground that they were the fruit of an unlawful arrest was properly denied.

In addition, since the defendant failed to raise any objection to the sufficiency of the plea allocution in the court of first instance, he has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review as a matter of law *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636). In any event, we find no merit to the defendant’s claim. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          28,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,326,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,996,506
<PP&E>                                      15,237,366
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,618,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,082,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,918,817
<BONDS>                                      3,879,876
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,576,902
<OTHER-SE>                                     691,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,082,970
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,584,771
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,246,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               935,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                270,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                   120,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            150,022
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,022
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor ESPINOSA-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41568

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 17, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Espinosa-Contreras (Espinosa) appeals the 46-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. Espinosa argues that the district court did not address all of the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing sentence and did not address the reasons that Espinosa ad*482vanced for a downward departure or variance from the Guidelines.

The Government argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary denial of Espinosa’s motion for a downward departure or variance.

The court lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guideline range. However, the court must still determine whether the imposition of a guideline sentence instead of a non-guideline sentence was reasonable. *United States v. Nikonova,*480 F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir.2007).

Espinosa has demonstrated no error in the guidelines computation, and the district court gave appropriate reasons for the sentence. We therefore give great deference to the sentence imposed. *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Given Espinosa’s serious prior drug conviction and his illegal return to the United States after serving a 40-month sentence and being deported to Mexico, and the deference due to the sentencing judge’s discretion, the sentence imposed is not unreasonable.

Espinosa’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Espinosa contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Espinosa properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### CHRIST, Respondent, v. CHETWOOD, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

April 23, 1894.)

Appeal from special term.

Action by Bernard B. Christ against Bradbury C. Cbetwood.

For former reports, see 20 N. Y. Supp. 841; 22 N. Y. Supp. 1133; 23 N. Y„ Supp. 1160; and 26 N. Y. Supp. 80.

Argued before NEWBURGER, McCARTHY, and CONLAN, JJ.

*1149Edward Bartlett, for appellant.

Herman G. Loew, for respondent.

CONLAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order granted at special term, De■cember 21, 1893, allowing full costs on affirmance by the general term an ■order made at special term on the 19th day of May, 1893, denying a motion -for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The motion was made on a case and exceptions, and also the affidavits, as appears from the order of the general term. We think this case is within the rule laid down in Whitney v. Saxe, 2 N. Y. Supp. 653, and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.