alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2015 ZEBRA-TAILED LIZARD MONITOR

HUALAPAI RESERVATION
 

Prepared by: Dr. Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Ms. Donata DuPree, Hualapai Tribe Mr. Joseph Montana, Hualapai Tribe 

A project funded b

Reclamation thro

Canyon Dam 

Managemen

Special thanks to 

Marianne C

and Dr. Lawren
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

 Prior to the 1983-4 flood event on the Colorado Ri

Grand Canyon, zebra-tailed lizards were common Diamond Creek dunes on the Hualapai Reservatio

 The flood caused river raft operators to drive over 

for raft take out and launch 

 After the flood event (83-4) no more zebra-tailed li

be found at the Diamond Creek dunes and they weas extirpated in Grand Canyon 

 In 2012, Reclamation funded the Hualapai Tribe an

Ecological Consulting to implement a translocatiomonitoring effort at the Diamond Creek dunes 

 12 lizards were translocated from Peach Springs C 2012 – 2015 Annual Monitoring- 1 survey/mo. 
DIAMOND CREEK TRANSLOCATIO

AND MONITORING AREA



Male zebra-tail
 
Female zebra-tail
 
Juvenile zebra-tail
 
Baby zebra-tail
 
Zebra-Tail!!
 

Oct ber 2, 2015 o ,

Table 1. 2015 zebra-tail lizard survey results 

Date # of ztl 

located 

# juveniles # Babies Mean dist. 

To veg. (m) 

Veget

May 1, 2015 9 1 0 0.7 San

m

creo

June 4, 2015 8 2 0 1.2 San

creo

July 8, 2015 13 1 5 1.0 Bri

creo

willow

August 13, 

2015 

9 1 1 0.5 San

ar

creos

September 

11, 2015 

14 7 1 0.8 C

mes

v

October 2, 

2015 

15 4 3 1.0 San

c

m

Average 11.3 2.7 1.7 0.9 
Table 2. A summary of the annual zebra-tail lizard monitoring results 2012-2015. 

Year Mean # of 

ZTL 

located 

Mean # 

Juveniles 

Mean # Babies Mean distan

to vegetatio

(m) 

2012 4.0 0.6 0.00 1.2 

2013 3.5 1.0 0.00 1.3 

2014 5.6 2.4 0.13 (3 Total) 2.0 2015 11.3 2.7 1.70 (10 Total) 0.9 
QUESTIONS 

ANNUAL REPORT AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
# L_2009317EN.01002801.xml

| 3.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 317/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 317/28

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1180/2009

of 30 November 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Marrone di Combai (PGI)]

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Marrone di Combai’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Marrone di Combai’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 107, 9.5.2009, p. 23.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY

Marrone di Combai (PGI)

---
HUERFANO RIVER NEAR BOONE, COLatitude: 38.225Longitude: -104.261Elevation: 4444

Huerfano River near Boone, CO

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



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Apishapa Site Page...



Apishapa

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



Medano Pass
DUCHESNE RIVER NEAR TABIONA, UTLatitude: 40.3Longitude: -110.602Elevation: 6202

DUCHESNE RIVER NEAR TABIONA, UT

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



Wolf Creek Peak

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



Rock Creek

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



Trial Lake
# L_2009125EN.01005801.xml

| 21.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 125/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/58

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 418/2009

of 20 May 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 May 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 261, 14.10.2008, p. 11.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

FRANCE

Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence (PGI)

---
#### Michael S. McDermott, Respondent, v Joanne M. McDermott, Appellant.

The trial court failed to comply with its duty to "state the facts it deems essential” to its decision (CPLR 4213 [b]) and we decline to exercise our power to review the record to determine whether, despite the trial court’s failure to so comply, the court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record. Effective appellate review, especially in proceedings involving child custody determinations, "requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court — the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” *(Matter of Jose L. I.,*46 NY2d 1024, 1026). The record here presents factual issues, including questions of credibility, and in light of the serious conflicting allegations made by the parties against each other, resolution thereof is best left to the court of first instance *(see, Giordano v Giordano,*93 AD2d 310). Furthermore, the court’s failure to conduct its in camera interview with the children on the record, particularly since it accorded the children’s preferences weight in its determination, makes intelligent review by this court impossible *(see,*CPLR 4019; *Mosesku v Mosesku,*108 AD2d 795).

Accordingly, the appeal is held in abeyance, and the matter is remitted to the trial court for in camera interviews with the children on the record, and formulations of findings of fact essential to its decision. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES, L.P. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      384
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (50)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,976
<PP&E>                                          76,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,249)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              691
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,327
<SALES>                                          8,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,623
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,789
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,789
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Armendo Da Costa *v.*Robert E. Gregory

*Ronald D. Williams,*with whom was *Robert J. Cooney,*for the appellee (defendant).

*John J. McNamara,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued May 6

decided May 6, 1975

It appearing that the plaintiff failed to file his appeal within the time limited by § 601 of the Practice Book and that the defendant timely filed his motion to dismiss the late appeal in accordance with the provisions of § 697, the motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is granted.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Kevin Cronin, Chief Financial Officer of US Global Nanospace, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of US Global Nanospace,
Inc.

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.

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

The Company'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 Company and have:

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

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

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

The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's
auditors and to the audit committee of the Company's board of directors (or
persons fulfilling the equivalent function):

(i) 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 Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

(ii) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting.



                             Dated:  February 21, 2006


                             /s/ Kevin Cronin
                             -----------------------
                             Kevin Cronin
                             Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Transmeta Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew R. Perry,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.

Date: May 4, 2004                         By: /s/ MATTHEW R. PERRY
                                              ----------------------------------
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer,
                                          Transmeta Corporation

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Transmeta Corporation and will be retained by Transmeta
Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### CERNEY v. D. MAYER BREWING CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

October, 1896.)

Petition of Joseph Cerney against the D. Mayer Brewing Company.

M. Hallheimer, for petitioner.

B. Lewinson, for respondent.

No opinion. Affirmed upon argument.
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
 Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection: Kearneysville, WV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Upcoming Events
                    Recent Events
                        International Workshop The Fruit Microbiome: A New Frontier
                                    Open House 2019Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Kearneysville, West Virginia Appalachian Fruit Research Laboratory Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection People & Locations







Elizabeth  Silver
                        Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection

                        




                        
                        Biological Aid
                        Phone: (304) 725-3451
                        
                        
                        Fax: (304) 728-2340(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

GARY L. GREGG AND MARY E. GREGG,

Respondents

v.

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., 

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

INC., RIVERSOURCE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY AND ROBERT A. 

KOVALCHIK,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 490 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioners, is:

Whether the Superior Court improperly held that a strict 

liability standard applies to a claim under the “catch-all” 

provision of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and 

Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 et seq as 

amended in 1996, even though the provision expressly 

requires proof of “fraudulent or deceptive conduct.”

The Application for Leave to File Statement in Support of Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED as moot.
_____________

No. 96-1357SD

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of South Dakota.

*

Robbie Lee Mason, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: July 11, 1996

 Filed: July 18, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, LAY, and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Robbie Lee Mason appeals his drug-related guidelines sentence. Mason

contends the district court improperly enhanced Mason's sentence because

he was a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity that involved five

or more participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). We disagree. Having

reviewed the record, we conclude the district court's decision about

Mason's role in the offense is not clearly erroneous. Mason also contends

the district court improperly refused to depart downward from the

guidelines because his criminal history category significantly

overrepresents the seriousness of Mason's criminal history. See U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.3. Again, we disagree. The district court's refusal to depart

downward is not reviewable on appeal. We thus affirm Mason's sentence.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00277-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. S-13313-16

Before Womack, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

$2,126.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY AND 2012 DODGE CHARGER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On February 13, 2019 and March 26, 2019, we notified appellant that his brief 

had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We 

stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten 

days, appellant filed with the court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion 

reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 2, 2019