alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting, October 13-14, 2021

ACTION ITEMS, MOTIONS, and VOTES

MOTIONS

Motion to Adopt Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the June meeting are still under review and were deferred until the next Technical 

Work Group meeting.

ACTION ITEMS

• [All TWG Members] Contact Clarence Fullard, Reclamation, if interested in being part of the 

Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group (SCAHG) and discussions to address unanticipated 

emergencies.

• [GCMRC] Will make accessible to the SCAHG and others its real-time information about water 

temperature and dissolved oxygen conditions at the dam.

• [Brian Healy, NPS] Will send link to the non-native aquatic species threat assessment when that 

has been posted to the NPS website. 

• [All TWG Members] To provide additional comments on the example metrics to Helen Fairly.

• [Rob Billerbeck, NPS] Will provide an update at the next TWG meeting on riparian vegetation. 

• [All TWG Members and SCAHG] Received a request for a motion at the next TWG meeting to 

forward to the AMWG a recommendation that power generation be installed in the bypass 

tubes to accomplish both power and cooling. Suggested draft language as follows: 

o The TWG recommends that the AMWG recommends to the Secretary of the Interior that 

hydropower production be constructed in the bypass tubes of Glen Canyon Dam. Such a 

facility will provide energy production during years of low inflow and during planned 

high flows. In addition, such capacity will provide at least some thermal control for the 

downstream Colorado River ecosystem. Such consideration will require additional 

information for a full evaluation, and the TWG requests authorization from AMWG to 

proceed with developing such additional information.

• [GCMRC] Will 1) Report back to the TWG more frequently and report data during the summer 

when the sandbars are most useful to users, and 2) Use projections from Reclamation to start 

reporting sandbar volumes given future scenarios.

• [Reclamation] Will contact Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni, to help find people who can assist 

with the peer review for cultural resources. 

• [GCMRC] Received request to give a report at the Annual Reporting Meeting on the state of the 

sandbars after the monsoon event. 
• [Reclamation] Will get more information regarding the suggestion to install power generation in 

the bypass tubes to accomplish both power and cooling pertinent to the topic of emerging 

issues.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128508 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128508 

 COA: 242186 
 Wayne CC: 01-000862

MICHAEL MAYBERRY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 5, 2005 

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. 

d1024 

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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Jose ESPIET-BETANCOURT, Specialist Five, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,363.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Aug. 22, 1975.

*92
      *Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera, Captain Michael P. LaHaye,*and *Captain Sammy S. Knight*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Raymond Michael Ripple*and *Captain Richard T. St. Clair*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The appellant stands convicted of numerous specifications of violating a general regulation contrary to Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 892. This case was convened and subsequently reviewed by the Commanding General, Eighth United States Army Area Command (Provisional). We granted review to determine if the commanding general was disqualified from reviewing and acting upon the case under our decisions in *United States v. Chavez-Rey,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 412, 50 C.M.R. 294, 1 M.J. 34 (1975); *United States*v. *Sierra-Albino,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 63, 48 C.M.R. 534 (1974); and *United States v. Dickerson,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 489, 47 C.M.R. 790 (1973).

The record of trial reveals that several prosecution witnesses were promised and received substantial clemency from the convening authority’s subordinate. This was noted by the staff judge advocate in his post-trial review to the commanding general. Such knowledge by a convening authority renders him disqualified from reviewing a case due to the possible influence of his subordinate’s judgment. *United States v. Chavez-Rey, supra; United States v. Sierra-Albino, supra; United States v. Dickerson, supra.*

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed and the action of the Commanding General, Eighth United States Army Area Command (Provisional), is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for assignment to a different convening authority and staff judge advocate for a new review and action.1

. Our resolution of the granted issue moots any question as to the staff judge advocate’s disqualification.
SIXTH WATER CR AB SYAR TUNNEL, NR SPRINGVILLE, UTLatitude: 40.118Longitude: -111.315Elevation: 6396

SIXTH WATER CR AB SYAR TUNNEL, NR SPRINGVILLE, UT

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



Hobble Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Divide Site Page...



Strawberry Divide
•• I 

### RECEIVED IN

# ~

# 3

# 002S -Q3 COURT 

### OF CRIMINAl

### APPEAL~ . 

## DEC 

## 0 82m5 ..' '\ '

# --------~]I·~o

# ______________ __**~·** . : P.O. Box 1707 *Quitman, TX 75783 *Phone:**903-763~~J61** *fax: 903-763-1511 November 

### 1ih, 2015 Warren Keith Rodgers #1 072740 Barry Telford Unit 3899 State Hwy 98 New Boston, Texas 75570 ·•'', ' Re: Cause No. 

### 16,648-20018 (Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus) THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. WarrenKeith Rodgers Mr. !'Rodgers, This letter

### is to inform you regarding yourApplication for Writ pfHabeas Corpus, that no answer 

### has been filed by the District Attorney and your 

### case was appealed to the Crimina/Court ofAppeals in Austin, Texas oti November_ 17th.._, 2015. ' ..I ' /**~·** 

### JIM WHEELER, CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS 

# * P. 0. BOX 689 *QUITMAN, TX 75783 * 903-763-4515 *FAX: 903-763-5105 

# *

Warren K. Rodgers # 1 072740 Barry Telford Unit 3899 State Hwy 98 New Boston, TX 75570 Dear Mr. Rodgers, November 16, 2015

In response to your letter dated November 2, 2015, you request this office to "conduct a DNA test..." which by statute is not a function ofthe District Attorney, rather by statute is the responsibility ofthe District Court. I further note that you have included a document entitled "Motion Requesting for Forensic DNA Testing ofEvidence Containing Biological Material Pursuant to Art. 64.01 ",in the Writ package that you filed with the trial court. As the granting or denying ofDNA testing pursuant to the provisions ofTex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 64.01, et.**s~q.,** is ajudicial function, the State will await the Court's preliminary ruling to respond to your motion. Depending on that ruling, the State will file, ifrequired, an appropriate**re~ponse.** · Cordially yours,

hw/dm.

# ·'--------------------~~\
#### Schloss *&*Pratel *v.*Schloss.

Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. A. A. Evans.

G. L. Comer, A. H. Merrill and P. B. McKenzie, for appellants.

S. H. Dent, Jr., for appellee.

On December 29th, 1896, appellants sued out an attachment in the circuit court of Barbour county, Alabama, at Eufaula, against J. Oppenheimer. Said attachment was duly levied on said December 29th, 1896, by the sheriff of Barbour county on certain goods, wares and merchandise as the property of said Oppenheimer, the' defendant in said attachment suit. After said attach-*701meat was so levied, II. Scliloss, the appellee, made claim to the property levied on, as required by Liav. Said claimant claimed the property levied on under a deed of assignment executed to, him by said Oppenheimer, the defendant in attachment. Said Oppenheimer was wholly insolvent at the time.

On the trial of the issue formed in the claim suit, judgment was rendered in favor of the claimant, from which the plaintiffs appeal.

The question presented on this appeal — 'the alleged invalidity of the same deed of assignment, on substantially the same evidence — was presented and decided adversely to the appellants in the case of *Inman v, Schloss,*122 461, and on the authority of that case,

the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
Exhibit 99.1

   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, James S. Osterman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blount International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financing reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.



Date: July 30, 2004


/s/ James S. Osterman
-------------------------------------
James S. Osterman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Charles B. SHANE, M.D., Jeffrey Book, D.O., H. Robert Harrison, M.D., Glenn L. Kelly, M.D., Leonard J., Klay, M.D., Martin Moran, M.D., Manuel Porth, M.D., Thomas Backer, M.D., Susan Hansen, M.D., Andres Taleisnik, M.D., Julio Taleisnik, M.D., Roger Wilson, M.D., Medical Association of Georgia, Florida Medical Association, Louisiana State Medical Society, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HUMANA, INC., Coventry Health Care, Inc., Humana Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 06-14222, 06-14497

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 13, 2007.

James B. Tilghman, Jr., Stewart, Tilghman, Fox *&*Bianchi, P.A., Miami, FL, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Charlene P. Ford, Whatley Drake, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Kathlynn Butler Polvino, William Bard Brockman, V. Robert Denham, John C. Patton, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Atlanta, GA, Edward Soto, Christopher R.J. Pace, Weil, Gotshal *&*Manges LLP, Stanley H. Wakshlag, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami, FL, Gregory S. Coleman, Lisa Royce Eskow, Marc S. Tabolsky, Carol A. Funk, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Austin, TX, Thomas C. Zielinski, Coventry Health Care Inc., Plymouth Mtng, PA, James W. Quinn, Jeffrey S. Klein, Weil, Gotshal *&*Manges, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

*928Before CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set out in the district court’s order granting summary judgment, which was filed on June 19, 2006, except that we do not reach the issue of whether the “plus factors” requirement from antitrust law is applicable in civil RICO cases. Even if that requirement is not applicable, the district court’s judgment is still due to be affirmed under the facts and circumstances of this case.

AFFIRMED.
#### Frank L. Warrin, Appellant, *v.*John E. Van Nostrand, as Supervisor, etc., et al., Respondents.

(Argued June 20, 1890;

decided October 7, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the. Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made December 18, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of'the court on trial at Special Term, and affirmed an order making Michael Toner a party defendant.

*Henry C. Willcox*for appellant.

*Joseph A. Burr, Jr.,*for respondents.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Derek Edey, Appellant, v Yves Stimphil et al., Respondents.

— Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated January 22,1986.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents Stimphil and Garroway *(see,*Siegel, NY Prac § 128). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7647

RICHARD A. MILLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, in their

official and individual capacities; GEORGE M.

HINKLE, Warden, in their official and individual capacities; BENITA L. HAWKES, Operations

Officer, in their official and individual

capacities; RUTH BROWN, Grievance Coordinator,

in their official and individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-01-1267-AM)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Miller, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Huffman, No.

CA-01-1267-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 5, 2001 & entered Sept. 6,

2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Lost Creek Ventures, LLC D/B/A Happy Bulldog Management; 

Stephan Epstein; and Marilyn Roth Epstein v. Alan Pilgrim

Appellate case number: 01-15-00375-CV

Trial court case number: C-1-CV-12-007660

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Travis County

The motion for rehearing filed by Appellants Lost Creek Ventures, LLC, doing business 

as Happy Bulldog Management, Stephan Epstein, and Marilyn Roth Epstein is denied.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale

Date: July 26, 2016
Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group

Meeting Notes

Friday, May 25, 2018

In attendance: Jed Parker, Heather Patno, Greg Smith, Jerry Wilhite, Kevin Bestgen, Tom Chart, 

Don Anderson, Dave Speas, Randy Staffeldt, Dan Shaad, Tildon Jones, Matt Breen, Peter

Crookston

1. May 25, 2018 Hydrology Review

a. Yampa River Basin SWE continues to track 2001

Items:

Yampa headwaters are responding well. Possibly more mid elevation snow available. Warmer 

temperatures forecast through the weekend.

Tom – drop early next week driven by cooling?

Greg – Cooling and loss of snowpack responsible

Matt/Randy – Opened outlet gate yesterday, raised wetland elevation. Light traps contained 8 

larvae this morning captured in Stuart Lake. Increased flows may put more water into Stuart, 

through the 29th.

Kevin – could Reclamation send more water to extend flows around 11,000 cfs

Jerry – Amount of water to be released probably could be better used to prop baseflows

Extended flows from bypass unlikely to reach elevation reached without bypass

Recovery program likely to put request to Reclamation on record to increase flows possibly on 

Memorial Day. 

2. Next FGTWG – Monday, May 29 at 12:00 pm
- Page 1
- Page 2
- Page 3
- Page 4
- Page 5
- Page 6
- Page 7
- Page 8
- Page 9
- Page 10
- Page 11
- Page 12
- Page 13
- Page 14
- Page 15
- Page 16
- Page 17
- Page 18
- Page 19
- Page 20
- Page 21
- Page 22
- Page 23
- Page 24
- Page 25
- Page 26
- Page 27
- Page 28
- Page 29
- Page 30
- Page 31
- Page 32
- Page 33
- Page 34
- Page 35
- Page 36
- Page 37
- Page 38
- Page 39
- Page 40
- Page 41
- Page 42
- Page 43
- Page 44
- Page 45
- Page 46
- Page 47
- Page 48
- Page 49
- Page 50
- Page 51
- Page 52
- Page 53
- Page 54
- Page 55
- Page 56
- Page 57
- Page 58
- Page 59
- Page 60
- Page 61
- Page 62
- Page 63
- Page 64
- Page 65
- Page 66
- Page 67
- Page 68
- Page 69
- Page 70
- scan_extrapages.pdf
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8

- scan_section3.pdf
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44

- scan_extrapages.pdf
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8

- scan_section5.pdf
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0246

ROBERT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v. SHERYL ZIEGLER, Commander, Missoula County Detention Facility,

Respondent. ORDER 

### F LF APR 3 0 2024
Bowen Greerrwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana Robert Eugene Williams, via counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleginghe isunlawfully detained. On April 17, 2024, theFourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, Hon. Robert L. Deschamps, III, presiding, held a hearing on its Order to Show Cause as to why Williams should not be found in contempt ofa previous order ofthat court that ordered Williams to return $75,000 that he removed from a trust or trusts of which he was Trustee. The court ultimately found Williams in contempt and ordered him taken into custody until $75,000 is deposited with the Office ofthe Missoula County Clerk ofCourt. The District Court issued a written order to this effect that same day. Williamsnowchallengesthatorderonpetition forwritofhabeascorpus. Healleges that he has filed for bankruptcy and he does not have $75,000. He argues that Judge Deschamps has "essentially put [him] in debtor'sprison because he cannot pay this debt." He further allegesthat the court had insufficient evidenceto find that Williams had any of these funds in his possession. A contempt proceeding may be reviewed under a petition for writ ofhabeas corpus if the person seeking review is incarcerated at the time of filing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Gillispie v. Sherlock, 279 Mont. 21, 929 P.2d 199 (1996) (citing Crane v. State, 200 Mont. 280, 283, 650 P.2d 794, 796 (1982). Since Williams is presently 04/30/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0246incarcerated, we review the contempt proceeding at issue here. Our review ofcontempt

proceedings is limited to whether the lower court hadjurisdiction to issue the contempt order and whether there is evidence to support the order. Gillispie, 279 Mont. at 24, 929 P.2d at 200 (citing State ex rel. Foss v. District Court, 216 Mont. 327, 701 P.2d 342 (1985)). Inthiscase, Williamschallengeswhether there isevidence to support the court's order. We conclude that Williams has not met his burden ofdemonstrating a prima facie
case for habeas corpus reliefas required by Miller v. EleventhJud. Dist. Ct., 2007 MT 58, ¶ 14, 336 Mont. 207, 154 P.3d 1186. In this case, Williams has made no showing of a violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay. Although Williams offers some checking account statements to this Court, he does not assert that this is his sole asset nor provide verificationoftheseexhibits. Furthermore,hispetitioncitestono legal authority insupport ofhis arguments. M. R. App. P. 14(5)(b)(iii). He has therefore failed to persuade this Court that he is entitled to relief. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord and to Robert Eugene Williamspersonally. DATED this ofApril, 2024.

Justices 2