alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PAGE 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Lisa Hay, OSB #980628 

Federal Public Defender 

Rich Federico, IN Bar #23818-89 

Assistant Federal Public Defender 

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

(503) 326-2123 Telephone 

(503) 326-5524 Facsimile 

Lisa_Hay@fd.org 

Rich_Federico@fd.org 

Attorneys for Defendant Ryan Payne 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER, 

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, 

RYAN PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, 

BRIAN CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, 

PETER SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK, 

DUANE LEO EHMER, 

DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON, 

DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE BANTA, 

SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, 

KENNETH MEDENBACH, 

BLAINE COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, 

COREY LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, 

JASON CHARLES BLOMGREN, 

DARRYL WILLIAM THORN, 

GEOFFREY STANEK, TRAVIS COX, 

ERIC LEE FLORES, and JAKE RYAN, 

Defendants. 

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

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 348 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2. NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is hereby given that Defendants Ryan Payne, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and 

Brian Cavalier,1

 hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 

the Order entered in the record of this matter on March 22, 2016 (Docket No. 334), transporting 

the Defendants on April 13, 2016, from Portland, Oregon, to Las Vegas, Nevada, for the purpose 

of their first appearances in the District of Nevada. 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2016. 

 

Rich Federico 

Assistant Federal Public Defender 

 1

 Blaine Cooper may join in this appeal once his counsel has the opportunity to consult 

with him and advise as to his position. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 348 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERNET AMERICA, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,724,143
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,797,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                   273,524
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,388,783
<PP&E>                                       7,162,453
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,209,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,912,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,793,483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,138
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,630,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,912,155
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,869,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,201,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (49,897)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,281,537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,281,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,281,537)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)


</TABLE>
DUCHESNE TUNNEL OUTLETLatitude: 40.629Longitude: -110.904Elevation: 8858

DUCHESNE TUNNEL OUTLET

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



Lakefork Basin

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



Hayden Fork

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



Lily Lake

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



Rock Creek

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



Trial Lake
#### Rudolph COPELAND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 84-6202.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 18, 1985.

Denied.

Justice POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19506]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, October 14, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 
or (510) 907-5274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Thursday, 
October 14, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to 
participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information 
please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, 
or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or 
contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will 
include various IRS issues.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-19506 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-584V

Filed: November 18, 2013

Not for Publication

*************************************

ANTHONY LETTIERE, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Isaiah R. Kalinowski, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Ann D. Martin, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On November 18, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that he did not 

incur any costs in pursuit of his petition.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

Petitioner submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. During 

informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items within petitioner’s application. 

Based on these objections, petitioner amends his application for attorneys’ fees and costs to 

$7,500.00. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this amount to be 

reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $7,500.00, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Maglio,

Christopher & Toale, located at 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236, in the 

amount of $7,500.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2013 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
LOS PINOS R ABV VALLECITO RES  NR BAYFIELD, CO.Latitude: 37.415Longitude: -107.513Elevation: 7740

LOS PINOS R ABV VALLECITO RES  NR BAYFIELD, CO.

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



Weminuche Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vallecito Site Page...



Vallecito
# C_2009121EN.01000101.xml

| 29.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5483 — TOSHIBA/FUJITSU HDD BUSINESS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 121/01

On 11 May 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5483. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5483. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### In the Matter of Joy Wholesale Sundries, Inc., et al. Paul Berger, Respondent-Appellant; Stephen D. Goldstein, Appellant-Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for the judicial dissolution of a closely held corporation, converted to a proceeding to determine the fair value of the petitioner’s shares in said corporation upon the election of the corporation to purchase the petitioner’s shares pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1118, the appeal and cross appeal are from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Modugno, J.H.O.), entered October 4, 1985, which, *inter alia,*(1) determined the fair value of the petitioner’s shares in Joy Wholesale Sundries, Inc., to be $1,230,000, and (2) directed that such sum be paid as follows: $630,000 immediately and $600,000 in six installments of $100,000 each, payable over a six-month period.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) deleting from the first paragraph thereof the words "ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND ($1,230,000.00)”, and substituting therefor the words "ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND ($1,107,-000)”, (2) deleting from the second paragraph thereof the words "SIX HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND ($630,000.00)”, and substituting therefor the words "FIVE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND ($507,000)”, and (3) awarding the petitioner interest at the rate of 9% per annum on each periodic payment of a portion of said sum of $1,107,000 from March 20, 1985, to the date of payment, and upon the unpaid balance *311thereof, to be paid together with each periodic installment of principal. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment.

The Judicial Hearing Officer erred in failing to apply a discount to reflect the lack of marketability of the petitioner’s shares of stock in a closely held corporation *(see, Matter of Blake v Blake Agency,*107 AD2d 139, *lv denied*65 NY2d 609). In our previous decisions addressing this issue, we had applied a lack of marketability discount of 25% *(see, Matter of Blake v Blake Agency, supra; Matter of Fleischer,*107 AD2d 97). However, in the particular circumstances presented at bar, we have determined that an appropriate discount would be 10%. Other than the failure to apply the lack of marketability discount, we find no error in the methods used by the Judicial Hearing Officer to determine the fair value of the petitioner’s shares *(see, Matter of Blake v Blake Agency, supra).*

Since there was no evidence of bad faith on the petitioner’s part, the court should have awarded interest on the fair value determined from March 20, 1985, the day prior to the filing of the petition, to the date of payment *(see, Matter of Blake v Blake Agency, supra,*at pp 150-151). We therefore award interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum *(see,*CPLR 5004), and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment *(see,*CPLR 411). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### THE PORTLAND COMPANY'S CASE. The Portland Company, appellant, *v.*The United States, appellees.

(5 Court of Claims R., p. 441; 15 Wallace R., p. 1.)

*On the claimants Appeal.*

*The Amended Rule XXI directs the manner in which a brief shall he made up. The appellant in preparing his brief totally 'disregards the rule. The case is submitted on the merits.*

Where an1 appellant, in preparing his brief, wholly disregards the direction given by Amended Rule XXI, the court will dismiss the appeal on its own motion, though submitted by the parties on the merits.

*Mr. G. F. Talbot*for the claimant, appellant,

*Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Hill*for the United States, appellees.

*113Mr. Chief Justice Chase

delivered the opinion, of the court:

From time to time the court has adox>ted rules of practice intended to facilitate the presentation of causes by counsel and their consideration by the court. Finding that these rules, through the inattention of the bar, had failed in a great degree of tlieir intended effect, we promulgated at the last term, and for the same end, an amended twenty-first rule, the fourth section of which required that the brief should contain, *in the order there*stated—

First. A concise abstract or statement presenting succinctly the questions involved, and the manner in which they were raised.

Second. An assignment of the errors relied upon, setting out, in cases brought up by writ of error, separately and specifically, each error asserted and intended to be urged, and in cases brought up by appeal, as specifically as may be, the error alleged to exist in the decree; or, if the error be alleged in a ruling upon the report of a master, stating the exception to the report and the action of the court upon it.

Third. A brief of the argument exhibiting a *olear*statement of the points of law or fact to be discussed, with reference to the pages of the record and authorities relied upon in support of each point, and containing, when a statute of a State is cited, so much thereof as may be deemed necessary to the decision of the case, printed at length.

The fifth section of the rule also required that when the error allowed is to the charge of the court, the specification shall set out the part referred to *totidem, verbis,*whether it be instructions given or instructions refused.

And the sixth section required that when the error alleged is to the admission or rejection of evidence, the specification shall quote the full substance of the evidence admitted or rejected.

The necessity of strict compliance with these rules, especially in view of the greatly augmented business of the court, is evident. It will facilitate as much the labors of the bar as those of the bench. That counsel might have full notice of the rule, it was required to take effect on the first day of the present month of January, and the clerk was directed to have printed copies made of the rule as amended, and send one copy to each of the counsel in all cases pending and not yet argued. In the *114case before us, this rule has been totally disregarded on the part of the appellant.

We shall, therefore, in this case dismiss the appeal.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Water Quality Synthesis Update

Bridget R. Deemer1

GCDAMP Technical Working Group Meeting

October 13, 2022

1U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center
Over half a century record of limnology data from Lake Powell, desert 

southwest USA: from reservoir filling to present day (1964-2021) 

Data paper submitted to L&O Letters in 

August 2022, currently in revision.

58-year water quality dataset 

8 research ready flat files 

5,208 unique site visits

9 sites with long-term quarterly to monthly scale data

Deemer et al. In Revision
Water Quality is Dynamic 

2022 Longterm 

average

Preliminary Data, Do Not Cite Deemer et al. In Revision
CE-QUAL W2 Model Improvements

-Bryce Mihalevich began a Post Doc in June 2022.

-Constructing a new grid with updated bathymetry 

from Jones and Root 2021

-Examining options for different weather inputs

-AR5 

-Bullfrog Marina Weather Data

-Page Airport

-Dryland Research Institute/BOR

-Incorporate information from long term monitoring 

program on:

-Wind sheltering

-Water clarity

Example Lake Powell CE-QUAL grid structure 
Dissolved Oxygen Demand in Inflow 

Plumes

5

 3 Temperature Treatments (16.2, 19.6, 24.5)

>3-fold 

increase in 

rate

>2-fold 

increase in 

rate

Preliminary Data, Do Not Cite Preliminary Data, Do Not Cite
Dissolved Oxygen Demand in Inflow Plumes

6 Preliminary Data, Do Not Cite Preliminary Data, Do Not Cite
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
                       Financial Data Schedule

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited financial statements at September 30, 1995 and 1996, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 

       
<S>                            <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1995             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                              664,979               3,500,574
<SECURITIES>                              0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                        58,792                  23,476
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                       0
<INVENTORY>                          84,596                 147,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,143,440               3,820,796
<PP&E>                              109,818                 119,443
<DEPRECIATION>                       13,723                  33,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,603,236               4,349,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               339,428                 279,908
<BONDS>                                   0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<COMMON>                              1,434                   2,883
<OTHER-SE>                        1,909,507               6,302,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,603,236               4,349,065
<SALES>                           2,268,045               2,736,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  2,292,833               2,847,266
<CGS>                               299,881                 375,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,229,972               4,375,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    467,477                 714,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   17,814                   4,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      45,047              (1,532,911)
<INCOME-TAX>                          5,000                   3,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  40,047              (1,536,516)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                         40,047              (1,536,516)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.02                   (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.02                   (0.58)
        

</TABLE>