alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Glen Canyon 

LTEMP EI

LTEMP Status U

Technical Work G

October 21, 201
Long‐Te

Glen Canyon Dam

rm Experimental and Management Plan EIS

Near‐Term Activities• Presented detailed results of resource modeling at Feb

AMWG meeting

• Held a more detailed webinar on power systems mode

approach and results with stakeholders on March 27

• Developed supplemental analyses for power systems w

in Appendix K)

• Sent Draft EIS to Cooperating Agencies on June 29

• Sent Draft EIS Appendices to Cooperating Agencies on 

with exception of the SDM Report (August 3) and the W

Ratepayer Analysis (August 7)
Long‐Te

Glen Canyon Dam

rm Experimental and Management Plan EIS

Near‐Term Activities (Cont.)• Conducting peer review of models – no fatal flaws ide

– Vegetation Model – Methods and results complete

– Fish Models – Methods complete, results in review– Hydropower Models – Methods complete, results in process– Retail Ratepayer – Methods complete, results in process– Wholesale Ratepayer – Methods and results in process

• Meetings with stakeholders and tribes to address conc

develop consensus on a preferred alternative
Long‐Te

Glen Canyon Dam

rm Experimental and Management Plan EIS

Next Steps• Cooperating Agency comment deadline September 30

• Biological Assessment October 2015• Public DEIS December 2015• Public Meetings February 2016• Biological Opinion March 2016

• FEIS and ROD April/May 2016
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 27, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00567

- CV

IN RE: ORDER FO R FORECLOSURE, CONCERNING 6304 RIDGEHURST, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78250

- 5006

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 07478 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 22, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating its intent to appeal an order awarding the appellees attorney’s fees; however, the notice of appeal state d no final order was signed. On August 26, 2019, a deputy clerk of this court contacted the trial court regarding the

status of the order and was informed no order will be entered.

“[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an ap peal may be taken only from a final judgment. ” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) . Because no final judgment or appealable order appears to have been entered in the underlying cause with regard to the payment of attorney’s fees, app ellant is ORDERED to show cause in writing no later than two weeks from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
RIO GRANDE NEAR DEL NORTELatitude: 37.689Longitude: -106.46Elevation: 7996

RIO GRANDE NEAR DEL NORTE

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 Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      49,448,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,749,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,153,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           102,165,000
<PP&E>                                      17,963,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,032,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             122,150,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       39,610,000
<BONDS>                                      1,571,000
<COMMON>                                    80,669,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,536,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               122,150,000
<SALES>                                     22,818,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,187,000
<CGS>                                        4,810,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,447,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            45,125,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (446,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (11,302,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (2,112,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (9,190,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,190,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.66)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1975 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1975

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities 
  Exchange Commission to refund or credit excess payments made to the 
                              Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 2015

 Mr. Meeks (for himself, Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Foster, and Mrs. Carolyn B. 
Maloney of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities 
  Exchange Commission to refund or credit excess payments made to the 
                              Commission.

    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 ``Securities and Exchange Commission 
Overpayment Credit Act''.

SEC. 2. REFUNDING OR CREDITING OVERPAYMENT OF SECTION 31 FEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(15 U.S.C. 78ee) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(n) Overpayment.--If a national securities exchange or national 
securities association pays to the Commission an amount in excess of 
fees and assessments due under this section and informs the Commission 
of such amount paid in excess within 10 years of the date of the 
payment, the Commission shall offset future fees and assessments due by 
such exchange or association in an amount equal to such excess 
amount.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to any fees and assessments paid before, on, or after the date of 
enactment of this section.
                                 <all>
```
Conservation/Recovery of 

Colorado Pikeminnow in Grand Canyon

Biological Feasibility

March 14, 2019
 A little background

 What, How & Why?

 Stakeholder

Involvement

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
Background

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
Preliminary/Draft; do not cite

Background:

Pikeminnow

Archeological 

Records Stanton’s 

Cave 4,000 ya

LCR -

Salt Can. 

Cave

Homolovi

Site

Catclaw Cave 

below Hoover
Preliminary/Draft; do not cite

Background:

Pikeminnow Historical 

Collections*/Reports

Glen Canyon/Paria “Salmon”: Settlers – 1880s

Stanton Christmas Meal – 1889

Dynamite Fishing – Loper early 1900s

*Museum specimen (UM) - 1934

Shinumo Creek “Salmon” 

- Nevills 1940; 1942

- Goldwater 1940

Tapeats Creek “Salmon” 

– Nevills 1948

- J. Doerr 1948

LCR @ Grand Falls 

“Salmon” 

– Miller (via Sykes) –

early 1900s 

Below Lava 14-16 “Salmon” – Kolb 1911 

Havasu Creek -

*Angler 1972

1

3

2
Background:

“...These salmon were old friends of ours, being found from one end to 

the other of the Colorado, and on all its tributaries. They sometimes 

weigh twenty-five or thirty pounds, and are common at twenty pounds; 

being stockily built fish, with large, flat heads. They are not gamey, 

but afford a lot of meat with a very satisfying flavour.”

Ellsworth L. Kolb 1915. Through the Grand Canyon...

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
 What & How?

Phased Conceptual Approach:

 Phase 1 Pikeminnow Viability/Feasibility 

Assessment

 Phase 2 - If Viable/Feasible (based on phase 1) 

Experimentation to Assess Feasibility.

 Phase 3 - If Viable/Feasible (based on phase 2 

experimentation) Plan Development and 

Implement Recovery Actions (translocation(s) & 

monitoring etc.).

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
 What & How? Phase 1

 Pikeminnow Viability/Feasibility Assessment

 Paper exercise thru agreement with USGS

 USGS – science provider

 Steering Committee to guide process – reps 

with management authorities in GC: AZGFD, 

NG&F, HG&F, NDOW, NPS, FWS, USBR

 Expert elicitation (w/field visit) 

 Report (targeted winter 2019/2020)

 Stakeholder review

 USGS OFR 

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
 WHY? 

 Additional Conservation and Recovery 

Options May be Needed. 

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
Status - Green River Subbasin

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
Status – Col. River Subbasin

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
Status – San Juan Subbasin

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
Commitment: 

IF future actions (e.g. Phase 

proposed – at the table with 

work together openly 

and responsibly.

2 or 3) are 

stakeholders to 

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
Thank You 
Background

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite

Recovery Criteria:

Self-Sustaining –

Green River Subbasin > 2,600 adults

Colorado Subbasin >1,000 

OR

Col. SB > 700 AND >800 in San Juan
uo Qusatt SendsrT eur Fut

Green

Colorado

Preliminary/Draft; do not cite
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1324** 

YA YING WU; BAO GUO ZHAO , P etitioner s ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General , Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : October 5, 2010 Decided: October 2 9 , 2010

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New Jersey , for Petiti oner s . Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, David H. Wetmore , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

. Unpublished opinions are not bindi ng precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ya Ying Wu and her husband, Bao Guo Zhao (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismis sing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Wu is the primary applicant for asylum; the claims of her husband are derivative of her application.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (20 10 ). The Petitioners first challenge the determination that they failed to establish their eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he [or she]
p resented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias

Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483

- 84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that the Petitioners fail to demonstr ate that the evidence compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief. Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’ request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for with holding of removal is higher than for asylum

— even though the facts that must be proved are the same

— an3 applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because the Petitioners failed to establish that they are eligible for asylum, they cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
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
 Livestock and Range Research Laboratory: Miles City, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Public Notice
                        Recent Notices
                                    2024 School Tours
                    2024 Research Animal Sale On-line AuctionSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Miles City, Montana Livestock and Range Research Laboratory Docs







June 12, 2009 Pictures from the Field Day Tour in cooperation with the 125th Anniversary of the Montana Stockgrower's Association. Pictures from the 2009 Open House


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
(7 Misc. Rep. 567.)

#### VREDENBURGE v. PALL.

(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.

March 26, 1894.)

Trial—Refusal to Charge—Instruction Already Given.

It is not error to refuse a request to charge where the substance thereof has already been charged.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by William A. Vredenburge against Albert T. Pall on a promissory note. Prom a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order refusing a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before CLEMENT, C. J., and OSBORNE, J.

Archibald C. Shenstone, for appellant.

Klein & Rendich, for respondent.

OSBORNE, J.

This action was brought to recover the amount of a certain demand note made by the defendant to the order of one Dunn, and by him indorsed and transferred to plaintiff. Defendant admitted the making of the note in suit, but alleged that previous to the making thereof he had made a certain other note for the accommodation of said Dunn, which plaintiff had discounted at a usurious rate, under a corrupt agreement with said Dunn so to do; that, when said note matured, plaintiff agreed with defendant to extend the time for the payment thereof at a usurious rate of interest, and that then the note in suit was given, and the usurious interest was paid in cash, in pursuance of such agreement. Two further extensions of the time of the payment of the note in suit were also alleged, as the result of other usurious agreements between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff had a verdict, and this appeal comes before us on exceptions taken to the refusal of the learned trial judge to charge certain requests submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant, other than as already charged.

We are of the opinion that the exceptions are not tenable, for, while they may embody sound propositions of law, they were not applicable to the issues made in this action, other than to the extent that they had already been charged by the learned trial judge. Defendant had the affirmative at the trial, and the contention sought to be maintained by him was that plaintiff had made an agreement with the defendant, under which plaintiff had demanded and received a greater sum than the legal rate of interest for the forbearance of his claim. This was denied by plaintiff, and the case was tried and submitted to the jury on the issue thus made, on a charge which clearly defined the law which the jury was to apply to the facts, as it found them to be. Plaintiff obtained a verdict in his favor, and we can see no reason for disturbing it. Judgment and order denying motion for a new trial affirmed, with costs.
TWIN LAKES TUNNEL (INDEPENDENCE PASS) INTO TWIN LAKESLatitude: 39.075Longitude: -106.381Elevation: None

Twin Lakes Tunnel (Independence Pass) into Twin Lakes

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

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



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

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



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

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



Nast Lake
# Patent

## Title
Thiaxanthene derivatives, compositions thereof and methods of treating

## Abstract

The foregoing detailed description has been given for clearness of understanding only, and no unnecessary limitations should be understood therefrom, as modifications will be obvious to those skilled in the art.

## Background
## Claims

1. A compound named 5,5-dimethyl-10-[2-methyl-4-(2-methylpiperidino) butyryloxy]-8-(3-methyl-2-octyl)-2-(2-propynyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-5H-[1]b enzopyrano[3,4-d]pyridine or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof.

2. The compound of claim 1 as the dihydrochloride salt.

3. A compound named 5,5-dimethyl-10-[2-methyl-4-(morpholino)butyryloxy]-8-(3-methyl-2-octyl)-2 -(2-propynyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-5H-[1]benzopyrano [3,4-d]pyridine or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof.

4. A compound named 5,5-dimethyl-10-[2,2-dimethyl-4-(piperidino)butyryloxy]-8-(3-methyl-2-octy l)-2-(2-propynyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-5H-[1]benzopyrano[3,4-d]pyridine or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof.

5. A compound named 5,5-dimethyl-10-[3-(piperidino)propionyloxy]-8-(3-methyl-2-octyl)-2-(2-pro pynyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-5H-[1]benzopyrano [3,4-d]pyridine or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof.

6. A pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

7. A pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 3 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

8. A pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 4 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

9. A pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 5 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

10. A method of relieving pain comprising administering to a patient in pain a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 1.

11. A method of relieving pain comprising administering to a patient in pain a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 3.

12. A method of relieving pain comprising administering to a patient in pain a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 4.

13. A method of relieving pain comprising administering to a patient in pain a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 5.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,526,301
<SECURITIES>                                18,228,527
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,538,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                   218,278
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,970,616
<PP&E>                                       3,095,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                 959,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,228,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,074,643
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,803
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,679,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,228,976
<SALES>                                     13,381,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,740,309
<CGS>                                        1,427,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,523,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,842,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               432,451
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,068,878
<INCOME-TAX>                                   231,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            837,678
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   837,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
NAVAJO INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECTLatitude: 36.792Longitude: -107.613Elevation: 6555

NAVAJO INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PETER SANTILLI, 

Defendant. 

No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-8 

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL 

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS 

OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 

18 U.S.C. § 3006A 

IT IS ORDERED that CJA Panel Attorney Thomas K. Coan is appointed 

pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, as 

counsel for Peter Santilli, effective January 27, 2016. 

DATED thisL.ayofFebruary, 2016. 

Ho~t!l7a~ United States District Court Judge 

PRESENTED BY; 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 133 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 1