alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEAR RIVER NEAR CORINNE, UTLatitude: 41.576Longitude: -112.101Elevation: 4219

BEAR RIVER NEAR CORINNE, UT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Temple Fork Site Page...



Temple Fork

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lightning Ridge Site Page...



Lightning Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Usu Doc Daniel Site Page...



Usu Doc Daniel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tony Grove RS Site Page...



Tony Grove RS

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garden City Summit Site Page...



Garden City Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Klondike Narrows Site Page...



Klondike Narrows

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Burts Miller Ranch Site Page...



Burts Miller Ranch

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



Buck Pasture

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



Powder Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cache Junction Site Page...



Cache Junction

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chicken Ridge Site Page...



Chicken Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buffalo Jump Site Page...



Buffalo Jump

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ben Lomond Peak Site Page...



Ben Lomond Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ben Lomond Trail Site Page...



Ben Lomond Trail

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



Bug Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chalk Creek #1 Site Page...



Chalk Creek #1

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Dry Bread Pond Site Page...



Dry Bread Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Emigrant Summit Site Page...



Emigrant Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Franklin Basin Site Page...



Franklin Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Giveout Site Page...



Giveout

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



Hayden Fork

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kelley R.S. Site Page...



Kelley R.S.

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



Lily Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Little Bear Site Page...



Little Bear

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Monte Cristo Site Page...



Monte Cristo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Oxford Spring Site Page...



Oxford Spring

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Salt River Summit Site Page...



Salt River Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sedgwick Peak Site Page...



Sedgwick Peak

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



Slug Creek Divide

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



Spring Creek Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tony Grove Lake Site Page...



Tony Grove Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear River RS Site Page...



Bear River RS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2052 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2052

To amend section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to forbid the use 
of chokeholds by persons subject to that provision's prohibitions, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2015

Mr. Jeffries (for himself, Ms. Bass, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Carson 
of Indiana, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Danny K. Davis of 
Illinois, Ms. Norton, Mr. Clay, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Ms. Wilson 
of Florida, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Kelly of 
 Illinois, Mr. Lewis, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Ms. Lee, Mr. Serrano, and 
  Mr. Payne) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to forbid the use 
of chokeholds by persons subject to that provision's prohibitions, 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 ``Excessive Use of Force Prevention 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. CHOKEHOLDS AS CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

    Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``For the purposes of this section, the 
application of any pressure to the throat or windpipe which may prevent 
or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air is a punishment, pain, or 
penalty''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00299-CV

GOLDA SEALE LANIER,

Appellant

v.

LEON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 87th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. T-12-437

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Patrick Lanier and the Estate of Golda Seale Lanier, have filed an 

unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal in this matter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent the parties from seeking relief to which they

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

dismissed.

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.
Lanier v. Leon Independent School District Page 2

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007); see TEX. R. APP. P.

5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b), 51.941(a) (West 

2005); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.208 (West 2013). Under these circumstances, 

we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. 

Tex. R. App. P. 2. The write-off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in 

no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed by appellants.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 5, 2013

[CV06]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**RENEE E. MAZER,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**FREDERIC D. FOX,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 128 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of October, 2015, the Application for Extraordinary** 

**Relief is** DENIED

**.**
#### Karen Kosovsky, Respondent, v Kenneth Zahl, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 672]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered October 4, 2011, in plaintiff’s favor, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 15, 2011, which confirmed the Special Referee’s report, dated October 20, 2010, regarding defendant’s retroactive child support arrears, and modified the Special Referee’s report, dated January 25, 2011, to correct a miscalculation of the amount of counsel fees awarded to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. Order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered December 21, 2010, which granted *421plaintiffs motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee, dated July 14, 2010, adjudged defendant in civil contempt, and ordered him to pay $10,000 to plaintiff, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee’s findings regarding counsel fees (as corrected) and retroactive child support arrears are amply supported by the record *(see Sichel v Polak,*36 AD3d 416 [2007]). Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b) authorizes the court to award counsel fees in enforcement actions. In addition, the parties’ so-ordered 2000 stipulation provided that plaintiff would be entitled to an award of counsel fees for fees incurred in connection with effecting payment of add-on expenses. Defendant’s argument that no definitive order was issued that judicially determined that plaintiff was entitled to counsel fees is without merit.

We also find that the record clearly supports a finding of civil contempt based upon defendant’s failure to comply with court-ordered child support payments, which, as the Special Referee found, was undertaken primarily to harass plaintiff. The court’s direction that defendant reimburse plaintiff for costs occasioned by his frivolous conduct was an appropriate exercise of discretion *(see Matter of Beiny,*164 AD2d 233 [1990]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001001109
<NAME> HELP AT HOME, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             176
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6133
<ALLOWANCES>                                       364
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6784
<PP&E>                                             439
<DEPRECIATION>                                      72
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4373
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9773
<SALES>                                          12697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 12697
<CGS>                                             8600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (572)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (152)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (420)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (421)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  SEP-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<CASH>                                                   94,291
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            65,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                             174,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        404,192
<PP&E>                                                  709,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                          481,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          931,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,135,417
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                             11,272,304
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                           1,393,889
<OTHER-SE>                                         (14,078,842)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            931,901
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        188,759
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,290,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       37,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1,139,158)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1,139,158)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
        


</TABLE>
# L_2011313EN.01004701.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 313/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 313/47

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 154 of 17 June 2009
  )

On page 54, Annex V, correlation table:

for:

| ‘Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 | This Regulation |
| --- | --- |
| ... | ... |
| Article 64(1)(a), (b) and (c)(i) to (iv) | Article 122 second paragraph |
| Article 64(1)(c)(v) to (viii) | Article 122 third paragraph |
| Article 64(1)(d) | Article 122 third paragraph |
| ... | ... |
| Article 66(1) | —’ |

‘Regulation (EC) No 479/2008

This Regulation

...

...

Article 64(1)(a), (b) and (c)(i) to (iv)

Article 122 second paragraph

Article 64(1)(c)(v) to (viii)

Article 122 third paragraph

Article 64(1)(d)

Article 122 third paragraph

...

...

Article 66(1)

—’

read:

| ‘Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 | This Regulation |
| --- | --- |
| ... | ... |
| Article 64(1)(a) | Article 122, second paragraph |
| Article 64(1)(b) and Article 64(1)(c)(i) to (iv) | Article 122, third paragraph |
| Article 64(1)(c)(v) to (viii) | Article 122, fourth paragraph |
| ... | ... |
| Article 66(1) | Article 125o(3)(b)’ |

‘Regulation (EC) No 479/2008

This Regulation

...

...

Article 64(1)(a)

Article 122, second paragraph

Article 64(1)(b) and Article 64(1)(c)(i) to (iv)

Article 122, third paragraph

Article 64(1)(c)(v) to (viii)

Article 122, fourth paragraph

...

...

Article 66(1)

Article 125o(3)(b)’

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

July 29, 2014

h0721 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2014

149012

- 3

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149012

- 3

COA: 310439; 310440

Macomb CC: 2011

- 001982

- FH

JORDEN ANTHONY POWELL, 2011

- 002176

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2014

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Martin Operating Corp., Plaintiff-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Andrew Bernstein Inc. and Andrew Bernstein, Defendants-Appellants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered October 4, 2016, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered October 4, 2016, affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Mindful that CPLR 3216 is "extremely forgiving of litigation delay" (<i>Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., </i>89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]), we find that Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's counsel demonstrated a justifiable excuse for the minor delay caused by his difficulty in obtaining a nonparty affidavit and a meritorious cause of action (<i>see </i>CPLR 3216 [e]; <i>Di Simone v Good Samaritan Hosp.,</i> 100 NY2d 632, 633 [2003]). Nor does the record reflect any "patterns of persistent neglect, a history of extensive delay, evidence of an intent to abandon prosecution, and lack of any tenable excuse for such delay" which would have warranted a CPLR 3216 dismissal (<i>Espinoza v 373-381 Park Ave. S., LLC, </i>68 AD3d 532, 533 [2009], <i>citing Schneider v Meltzer</i>, 266 AD2d 801, 802 [1999]).</p><p>Turning to the merits, plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The motion court correctly determined that the language of the governing commercial lease agreement clearly and unambiguously specified that defendants were to pay, as additional rent, 20% of any real estate tax increase (<i>see Meyers Parking Sys. v 475 Park Ave. S. Co.</i>, 186 AD2d 92 [1992]) and that plaintiff had standing to collect these sums, which were properly calculated. In opposition, defendants failed to raise any triable issue as to liability or plaintiff's calculations of the amount owed. Defendants' claim of waiver based on plaintiff's alleged delay in billing is without merit in light of the "no waiver" provision of the lease.</p><p>We have examined defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: June 16, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 32.2
------------

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report of Landauer, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jonathon M. Singer, 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 to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

i.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

ii.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company.

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


                         /s/ Jonathon M. Singer
                         --------------------------------------
                         Jonathon M. Singer
                         Chief Financial Officer



December 12, 2008
#### Demet Sabanci Cetindogan, Respondent, v Harvey B. Schuyler, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 88]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 11, 2011, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, to compel disclosure, unanimously modified, on the law, plaintiffs motion denied, defendant’s cross motion granted to the extent of directing plaintiff to respond to defendant’s demand for production of documents and notice of plaintiffs deposition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff met her prima facie burden of establishing that she was entitled to the return of the contract deposit by submitting evidence, in admissible form, that she satisfied the conditions and fully performed her duties under the parties’ contract *(see Jangana v Cogan,*76 AD3d 907, 908 [2010]; *Sapir v Hovas,*71 AD3d 566 [2010]; *Rosenthal v Oakes,*41 AD3d 305, 306 [2007]).

*578However, defendant raised an issue of fact in opposition. In support of his motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted the contract of sale, in which plaintiff represented that she and her husband would be the apartment’s only occupants. Moreover, by executing the contract, at paragraph 5 plaintiff represented that she had examined and was satisfied with, or accepted and assumed the risk of not having examined, the cooperative’s bylaws and house rules, which limit the occupancy of the apartment and prohibit pets. After the parties executed the contract, plaintiff sent an email to the broker, stating that her children “must stay in the apartment as long as they want without” her and her husband, and that this was “not negotiable.” Defendant also submitted an affidavit stating that a member of the board, who was present at plaintiffs interview, told defendant that plaintiff stated her intent not to abide by the cooperative’s rules.

Affording defendant, as the opponent of plaintiffs summary judgment motion, the benefit of all favorable inferences, we conclude that he has raised an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff acted in bad faith by sabotaging the board interview (see *Alter v Levine,*57 AD3d 923, 924 [2008]). Defendant is entitled to discovery to explore these material factual issues *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, De-Grasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 3087KU).]
PECOS RIVER BELOW AVALON DAM, NMLatitude: 32.481Longitude: -104.263Elevation: 3125

PECOS RIVER BELOW AVALON DAM, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sierra Blanca Site Page...



Sierra Blanca

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Adams Ranch #1 Site Page...



Adams Ranch #1

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



Wesner Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe