alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Invasive Species Threats:

Green Sunfish 

Scott VanderKooi

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
Green Sunfish in Glen Canyon

Glen Canyon Dam

-12 Mile Slough

Lees Ferry
Green Sunfish in Glen Canyon
Green Sunfish in Glen Canyon

 July 6 – AZG&FD capture 43 Green Sunfish at -12 

mile in Glen Canyon

 August 4 – Call with biologists from AZG&FD, NPS, 

Reclamation, and USGS-GCMRC

 August 5-6 – NPS approval granted & request to take 

action sent to Reclamation, DOI, NPS, USFWS and 

AZG&FD 

 August 7 – Notification sent to Tribes 

 August 12-14 – First removal effort by AZG&FD, NPS, 

and USGS-GCMRC biologists
Green Sunfish in Glen Canyon

 1st Removal Effort (August 12-13, 2015)

 954 Green Sunfish removed

 Electrofishing

 Boat – 689 [4 passes: 70, 168, 330, 121 (partial)]

 Backpack – 233 (1 pass)

 Hoop nets – 32 (2 sets of 22 baited nets)

 Captured fish preserved for beneficial use

 To be delivered to the Pueblo of Zuni eagle aviary

Photos courtesy Lisa Winters

(Preliminary Data from Winters et al. AGFD. 2015. Do Not Cite.)
Green Sunfish in Glen Canyon

 August 24 – Call with biologists from 

AZG&FD, NPS, Reclamation, and USGSGCMRC

 August 25 – Notification sent to Tribes and 

others

 August 27-28 – Second removal effort

Photos courtesy Lisa Winters
Green Sunfish in Glen Canyon

 2nd Removal Effort (August 27- 28, 2015)

 2574 Green Sunfish removed

 Electrofishing

 Boat – 672 [7 passes: 106,194,160,59,40,50,63)

 Backpack – 354 (4 pass: 184,100,139,115)

 Seine – 1364 (5 passes: 231, 209, 706,205,13)

 Seining was difficult because of large amounts of 

vegetation and the small size of the fish

 Captured fish again preserved for beneficial 

use at the Pueblo of Zuni eagle aviary

(Preliminary Data from Winters et al. AGFD. 2015. Do Not Cite.)
Green Sunfish in Glen Canyon

 September 11 & 25 – Calls with biologists 

from AZG&FD, NPS, Reclamation, USFWS, 

and USGS-GCMRC

 September 30 – Risk assessment distributed

 October 6 - Net barrier placed at mouth of 

slough by NPS and AZGFD personnel

 October 27-29 – Salvage operation planned 

for Common Carp and Flannelmouth Suckers

 Planned dates for treatments Nov. 4 and 14
#### Clarence R. Banks, Respondent, v County of Suffolk et al., Appellants.

In an action to, *inter alia,*recover fees paid to the Suffolk County Clerk to defray the cost of tax map verification prior to the recording of conveyances of real property affecting land in Suffolk County, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated March 4, 1986 as granted the plaintiff’s motion for class action certification.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff brought this action to, *inter alia,*challenge the validity of a $3 certification fee which has been charged by the defendant County of Suffolk since 1977 for verifying tax map designations before certain real property instruments are recorded, and to recover all such fees which have been collected by the county.

A hearing was held to determine whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the prerequisites for a class action established by CPLR 901. At the hearing, the plaintiff stated that the first time he paid the tax map verification fee to the defendants was in 1981. Since the fee has been retroactively validated by the Legislature as of November 1, 1980 *(see,*L 1984, ch 484, § 1), the plaintiff would be unable to recover any tax map verification fees he had paid to the defendants. Consequently, this plaintiff would be unable to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and class action certification must be denied *(see,*CPLR 901 [a] [4]). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard F. Mills, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey and Martoche, JJ.
# L_2015149EN.01002301.xml

| 16.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 149/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 149/23

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 22 December 2009
  )

On page 24, in Article 58(6):

for:

‘6.   Member States shall ensure that the information listed in points (g) and (h) of paragraph 5 is ...’;

read:

‘6.   Member States shall ensure that the information listed in point (g) of paragraph 5 is ...’.

---
As noted on original submission, the offense was a second-degree felony when it was 1

committed. Kahookele v. State, 165 S.W.3d 440, 441 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin), vacated and

remanded, No. PD-0794-05, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 757 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2006).

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

ON REMAND

NO. 03-04-00493-CR

Edmund Kahookele, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 945141, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In May 1995, appellant Edmund Kahookele pleaded no contest to engaging in

organized criminal activity by conspiring during the months of May through July 1993 to commit

burglary of a building and theft of more than $20,000. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 71.02 (West

Supp. 2005). As called for in a plea bargain agreement, the district court deferred adjudication of

guilty and placed Kahookele on community supervision for ten years. In July 2004, the court

adjudicated Kahookele guilty and imposed a twenty-year prison sentence. This appeal followed. 1

See Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
2

In his only point of error, Kahookele contends that the twenty-year sentence

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because he had served over nine years of the ten-year

probationary period, he was incarcerated for over seven years during that time, and the legislature

has since reduced the maximum punishment for his crime to ten years. He did not expressly raise

this issue in the trial court. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)

(holding cruel and unusual punishment contention waived by failure to object at trial). In any case,

it is the general rule that if the punishment assessed is within the range prescribed by the legislature,

it is not cruel and unusual. Samuel v. State, 477 S.W.2d 611614-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).

Kahookele’s arguments should have been addressed to the trial court, which had the discretion to

assess punishment within the statutory range.

The punishment assessed is not cruel and unusual. The point of error is overruled and

the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: June 9, 2006

Do Not Publish
# L_2014106EN.01004302.xml

| 9.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 106/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 106/43

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2010/283/EU of 19 January 2010 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Belgium

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 125 of 21 May 2010
  )

In the contents and on page 34, in the title:

for:

‘Council Decision of 19 January 2010 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Belgium (2010/283/EU)’,

read:

‘Council Decision of 2 December 2009 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Belgium (2010/283/EU)’;

on page 35, concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 19 January 2010.

For the Council

The President

E. SALGADO
  ’,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 2 December 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. BORG
  ’.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00687-CR

Dylan Shane Caad, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY 

NO. CR2012-502, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due November 22, 2019. On counsel’s 

motions, the time for filing was extended to February 21, 2020. Appellant’s counsel has now 

filed a fourth motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We 

grant the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than March 23, 

2020. No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order will 

result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on March 10, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Do Not Publish
#### Weill *v.*Weill.

*(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.*

April 12, 1890.)

1. Attorney and Client—Compensation—Lien on Alimony.

The attorney for plaintiff in an action for a limited divorce has no lien for his services on the alimony awarded, which he can enforce by proceeding against defendant for contempt in failing to pay the alimony.

2. Costs—How Enforced—Contempt.

The costs of an action for divorce cannot be collected by a proceeding to punish for contempt.

Action for limited divorce. Plaintiff obtained a decree directing defendant to pay her certain alimony, attorney’s fees, and costs; and her attorneys filed an affidavit alleging that they had received no compensation for their services, but had expended large sums for plaintiff in carrying on the suit, and asked that defendant be punished for contempt in failing to make the payments directed by the court. Defendant filed affidavits showing that he and plaintiff were again living together as husband and wife, and that plaintiff does not wish to enforce the judgment for alimony.

*Marks & Terry, (Montague L. Marks,*of counsel,) for plaintiff. *Joseph Steiner, (Alfred Steckler,*of counsel,) for defendant.

Andrews, J.

The husband and wife both swear that the alimony has been paid, and, besides, I am not referred to any case in which it has been held that an attorney has a lien upon the alimony awarded to the wife by a final judgment rendered in her favor, in an action for a separation. The costs cannot be collected by a proceeding to punish for contempt. *Jacquin*v. *Jacquin,*36 *628Hun, 378. Apparently, all that the court can do is to permit the attorney to issue an execution to collect the costs, and an order giving such permission, with $10 costs of this motion, may be entered.
USGS 11507000 - UPPER KLAMATH LAKE NEAR KLAMATH FALLS, ORLatitude: 42.25Longitude: -121.816Elevation: 4098.22

USGS 11507000 - UPPER KLAMATH LAKE NEAR KLAMATH FALLS, OR

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



Annie Springs

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



Crazyman Flat

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



Swan Lake Mtn

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



Sun Pass

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



Billie Creek Divide

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



Chemult Alternate

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



Cold Springs Camp

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



Fourmile Lake

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



Quartz Mountain

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



Sevenmile Marsh

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



Summer Rim

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



Taylor Butte
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Storage                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Storage                    
json
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40006 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Everardo Lerma,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 820

- 1

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *

Evera r do Lerma, federal prisoner # 33342

- 179, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, he argues that: (1) the district court’s ruling does not allow for meaningful appellate r eview, (2) the district court abused

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined t hat this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 8, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40006 Document: 00516122622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2021No. 21

- 40006

2 its discretion in treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding, and (3) it abused its discretion in finding that Lerma’s prior recovery from COVID

- 19 weighed against a grant of compassionate release.

We review a district court ’s decision to deny a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment, after conside ring the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Here, the district court sufficiently articulated reasons for denying
Lerma’s motion. See Chavez

- Meza v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018) . The district court denied Lerma’s motion based on an independent assessment of the § 3553(a) factors , and nothing suggests the court considered itself bound by § 1B1.13

. See United States v. Shkambi , 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693

– 94. The district court erred to the extent it concluded that Lerma’s prior recovery from COVID

- 19 also wei ghed heavily against his release. See United States v. Newton , 996 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir. 2021) (explaining that in the context of “compassionate release motions involving a novel virus,” courts “must base factual conclusions on record evidence”). Yet, because the district court appropriately denied Lerma’s motion under § 3553(a), any other error the court may have made is not grounds for reversal.

The district court’s order is **AFFIRMED.** Case: 21-40006 Document: 00516122622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2021
#### Gardner, Respondent, v. De Long, Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

July 1, 1890.)

Ho opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 10.12.3**

**AmendmentNo. 13 the “Amendment”) To**

**EmploymentAgreement (the “Employment Agreement”) between**

**Ray Rodriguez (“Employee”) and Univision Management Co. (“Company”)**

Employeeand Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.             **Term**.  The Term of the Employment Agreement isextended through December 31, 2009, unless earlier terminated in accordancewith the provisions of the Employment Agreement.

2.             **Base****Salary**.  The annual Base Salary rate will be OneMillion One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000) for the period of the Termfrom January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009.

3.             **Effective Date of Amendment**.  Upon execution by Employee and Company, thisAmendment will become effective as of January 1, 2007.

4.             **Other**.  Except as provided in this Amendment, allother terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in fullforce and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratifiedand confirmed.

**UNIVISIONMANAGEMENT COMPANY**

** **

 
| By:    |      /s/ Robert Cahill                      |   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |      Robert Cahill                          |   |
|   |      Vice Chairman and  Corporate Secretary |   |

 

 
| By:    |      /s/ Ray Rodriguez |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |      Ray Rodriguez     |

 

----
Flaming Gorge Technical Working 

Group

May 25, 2018 Hydrology Summary

Jed Parker, P.E.

This hydrologic update provides information regarding current conditions and fulfills the 

requirements detailed in the 2005 Flaming Gorge Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

in Section 2.5.3 related to an operational plan for Flaming Gorge Dam (“Hydrology Summary”). 

The Hydrology Summary is to describe the current hydrologic classification of the Green River 

and Yampa River Basins, including the most probable runoff patterns for the two basins. 

Hydrologic determinations for both the Yampa River Basin and Green River Basin above 

Flaming Gorge have been made and are unlikely to change unless significant, unexpected 

precipitation occurs in either basin. The Green River Basin above Flaming Gorge Reservoir is 

expected to receive 1,120,000 acre-feet in the April through July runoff period (May mid-month 

forecast), placing it in the average (below median) hydrologic classification. The Yampa River 

Basin is expected to receive 841,000 acre-feet for the same April through July runoff period, 

placing it in the moderately dry hydrologic classification. These projections are based off of the 

Colorado River Forecast Center’s May Final Forecast. 

10-Day Streamflow Forecasts

The following, Figure 1, illustrates 10-day forecasted flow values for the Yampa River at the 

Deerlodge Park gage, May 25 through June 5, 2018. Table 1 shows a comparison between the 

5/23 and 5/25/2018 15-day ESP outputs from the CBRFC Daily Model for the Yampa River. A 

CBRFC projection for the Green River at the Jensen, UT gage is provided in Figure 2.
Figure 1 - Streamflow forecast for the Yampa River, May 25 – June 5, 2018.

Table 1- CBRFC Yampa River 15-Day ESP comparison (5/23, 5/25/2018)

Date

Yampa Flow Projection

5/23 Run 5/25 Run Difference

5/24/2018 6246

5/25/2018 6482

5/26/2018 6218 6491 273

5/27/2018 6010 6818 808

5/28/2018 6076 6854 778

5/29/2018 5981 6562 581

5/30/2018 5650 5893 243

5/31/2018 5032 5332 300

6/1/2018 4434 4887 453

6/2/2018 4114 4631 517

6/3/2018 4066 4486 420

6/4/2018 4063 4337 274

6/5/2018 3752 4118 366

6/6/2018 3382 3929 547

6/7/2018 3098 3539 441

6/8/2018 3185

6/9/2018 2944
Figure 2 - CBRFC projection for the Green River at Jensen, UT, May 25 - June 05, 2018.

Yampa projections compared to actual flows

The following figures are provided for discussion on the potential of devising release schemes in 

April for release to the general public. Actual flows for 2018 are presented over CBRFC peak 

exceedance figures produced on April 4 and April 24, 2018 (placed in hydrology summaries).

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

12000

Flow (cfs)

CBRFC Green River flow projection at Jensen, UT
Exhibit 4.1

 

Share certificate

 

	
Number of certificate
    	
 
    	
Number of shares
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

NEXTERS INC.

 

COMPANY NUMBER 2053442

 

(COMPANY)

 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE BVI BUSINESS COMPANY ACT, 2004, AS AMENDED

 

This is to certify that                        of                                       is the registered holder of                             shares of no par value each being fully paid the above-named company, subject to the memorandum and articles of association of the company.

 

Given under the Common Seal of the Company this      day of

 

	
 
    	
 
    
	
Director
GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities 

Planned 2024 

Launch Take Out Project Description

25-Jan 30-Jan Lees Ferry trout population monitoring

14-Feb 1-Mar Quality of Water/fine sediment monitoring

11-Mar 14-Mar Lees Ferry fish population monitoring

3-Apr 17-Apr System-wide fish monitoring - AZGFD

4-Apr 9-Apr Lees Ferry trout population monitoring

9-Apr 26-Apr Aquatic Foodbase monitoring (drift)

16-Apr 26-Apr LCR HBC, camps at three locations on Little Colorado River

20-Apr 29-Apr Hopi Cultural Monitoring

23-Apr 13-May Juvenile HBC monitoring-April 27 Launch downstream Lees Ferry. 4/23-27 Glen Canyon

27-Apr 6-May Navajo Cultural Monitoring

2-May 20-May Survey Control Network

13-May 30-May Cultural Resource Monitoring

17-May 31-May System-wide fish monitoring - AZGFD

21-May 31-May LCR HBC, camps at 4 locations on Little Colorado River

25-May 3-Jun Zuni of Pueblo Cultural Monitoring

6-Jun 20-Jun Grand Canyon Youth-"Partners in Science"

8-Jun 17-Jun Southern Paiute Consortium Cultural Monitoring

12-Jun 21-Jun Hualapai Cultural Monitoring

13-Jun 18-Jun TRGD

26-Jun 5-Jul Grand Canyon Youth-"Partners in Science"

27-Jun 8-Jul LCR Juvenile HBC monitoring (3 camps)

3-Jul 18-Jul Grand Canyon Youth-"Partners in Science"

5-Jul 24-Jul Juvenile HBC monitoring

8-Jul 12-Jul Lees Ferry trout population monitoring

18-Jul 30-Jul Mainstem Fish, HBC-Seining

13-Aug 16-Aug Lees Ferry-Terrestrial Vegetation Monitoring

14-Aug 30-Aug Fine Grain sediment monitoring

24-Aug 9-Sep Terrestrial Vegetation Monitoring

9-Sep 11-Sep Terrestrial Vegetation Monitoring

28-Aug 16-Sep Mainstem Fish, HBC-aggregations (netting)

17-Sep 27-Sep LCR HBC, camps at three locations on Little Colorado River

27-Sep 17-Oct Juvenile HBC monitoring- Launch downstream 9/28. 9/24-27 Glen Canyon

4-Oct 21-Oct Campsite/Sandbar Monitoring (inc. TVM @ campsites)

7-Oct 11-Oct Lees Ferry trout population monitoring

22-Oct 1-Nov LCR HBC, camps at three locations on Little Colorado River

22-Oct 25-Oct HBC monitoring from Pearce Ferry upstream

7-Nov 12-Nov Lees Ferry fish population monitoring

possible trips to support HFE if sediment trigger occurs

Schedules are tentative and subject to change Updated 20240410 Contact gmanderson@usgs.gov
WILLOW CREEK ABOVE WILLOW CREEK RESERVOIRLatitude: 40.156Longitude: -105.98Elevation: 8135.07

Willow Creek above Willow Creek Reservoir

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Never Summer Site Page...



Never Summer

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



Stillwater Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Creek Pass Site Page...



Willow Creek Pass
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00376

- CV

HILCO RECEIVABLES, L.L.C.

, Appellant and Cross

- Appellee

v.

Pedro A. QUI Ñ ONES

, Appellee and Cross

- Appellant

From the County Court a t Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 333407

Honorable Irene Rios, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. We

ORDER all costs of the appeal assessed against the part y who incurred them.

SIGNED November 13, 2013.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice