alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          81,434
<SECURITIES>                                     1,414
<RECEIVABLES>                                  983,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,477
<INVENTORY>                                     12,154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,411,806
<PP&E>                                      10,163,057
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,617,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,446,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,430,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,975,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,446,210
<SALES>                                        480,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,584,328
<CGS>                                          252,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,135,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (19,337)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             121,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,538
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            109,388
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109,388
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
USGS 11509500 - KLAMATH RIVER AT KENO, ORLatitude: 42.133Longitude: -121.962Elevation: 3961

USGS 11509500 - KLAMATH RIVER AT KENO, 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
Hydroacoustic Fish 

Distribution 

Michael Horn, USBR, Denver 



Forebay Fish Distribution March 2022 

Latitude 

36.954 

36.952 

36.950 

36.948 

36.946 

36.944 

36.942 

36.940 

-111.494 -111.492 -111.490 -111.488 -111.486 -111.484 

Longitude 
Latitude 

36.948 

36.942 

36.940 

-111.494 -111.492 -111.490 -111.488 -111.486 -111.484 

36.946 

36.944 

Longitude 
 

Density (Fish/1000m

3) 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

Confluence 

Forebay 

Wahweap 

3/1/22 6/1/22 9/1/22 12/1/22 3/1/23 6/1/23 9/1/23 

Date 
 

Average Fish Length (cm) 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Confluence 

Forebay 

Wahweap 

3/1/22 6/1/22 9/1/22 12/1/22 3/1/23 6/1/23 9/1/23 

Date 
 

 

 

Conclusions

1. Year to year variation is high. 

2. Most of the year majority of fish are associated with 

canyon wall. 

3. Fish ted to remain above thermocline in well oxygenated 

water. Only observed deeper under certain conditions. 

4. At higher water levels, relatively low risk of entrainment
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JOSE A. ALVAREZ, ) 

) Case No. 6:15-cv-01981-YY

Plaintiff, ) 

vs. ) 

) ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

COMMISSIONER, ) FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Social Security Administration , ) 

) 

) 

____________Defendant._________)

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $6,150.97 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Payment of this award shall be paid via check made payable to 

Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorneys at Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., 474 

Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff’s attorney if the commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the 

government through the federal treasury offset program. There are no costs or expenses to be 

paid herein. 

Dated this day of March 2017. 

_____________________________ 

U.S. Magistrate Judge

PRESENTED BY: 

s/ Katherine Eitenmiller 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C. 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

8th

/s/Youlee Yim You

Case 6:15-cv-01981-YY Document 24 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 1
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 10, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00649-CR

ROBERT KETHE CALHOUN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1321230

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a guilty plea to burglary of a habitation with intent to 

commit theft. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the 

State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for eight years in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We dismiss the 

appeal. 

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no 
2

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is 

included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005).

Moreover, appellant’s sentence was entered October 11, 2011. Appellant’s 

notice of appeal, which was due November 10, 2011, was not filed until August 7, 

2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of 

appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Slaton v. 

State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
#### Equitable Life Assur. Soc. *v.*Hughes *et al.*

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

July 18, 1890.)

Costs—Taxation in Foreclosure Suits—Search of Title.

Under the statute and rules of practice in New York, fees paid by complainant In foreclosure suits for searches of title are only taxable as legal disbursements when the searches are official. Affirming 9 N. Y. Supp. 336.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Foreclosure proceedings instituted by the Equitable Life Assurance Society against Mary Ann Hughes and others. Plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining the clerk’s refusal to tax to plaintiff items paid by it to the Lawyers’ Title Insurance Company for searches of title.

Argued before Barnard, P. J.. and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Henry Day (George Waddington,*of counsel,) for appellant. *Stephens B. Jacobs,*for respondents.

Dykman, J.

This-is an appeal from an order vacating and setting aside an order overruling the taxation of costs in this action, and also from an order affirming the refusal of the clerk to allow certain items for disbursements for searches. The question. presented is whether the sums paid to the Lawyers’ Title Insurance Company are taxable as legal disbursements by the plaintiff in an action to foreclose a mortgage. It was decided at the special term (9 N. Y. Supp. 336) that only disbursements for official searches could be allowed in such cases, and the sum claimed by the plaintiff and rejected by the clerk, having been paid for unofficial searches, could not be taxed as a legitimate disbursement. Our examination leads us to the same conclusion, and the orders appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
PECOS RIVER NEAR LAKE ARTHUR, NMLatitude: 32.989Longitude: -104.321Elevation: 3337

PECOS RIVER NEAR LAKE ARTHUR, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sierra Blanca Site Page...



Sierra Blanca

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Adams Ranch #1 Site Page...



Adams Ranch #1

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



Wesner Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131686 & (41) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131686 COA: 266593 Oakland CC: 2003-190054-FC DAVID JAMES MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of December 15, 2006, we rema nded this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of its June 7, 2006 order denying leave to appeal under MCR 6.508(D). On order of the Court, the Court of Appeals having vacated its prior order and having issued on December 21, 2006 an order denying leave to appeal for lack of merit, defendant’s application in this Court is ag ain considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presente d should be reviewed by this Court.

d0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: RENEE CUELLAR, DIRECTLY

AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF

3 LEGENDARY TIGERS, LLC D/B/A

TIPSY TIGER AND D/B/A EPTX,

Relator. '

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 9

- 00035

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator = s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable Francisco X. Dominguez , Judge of the 205th District Court of El Paso , Texas, and

concludes that Relator = s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2050

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit members of the Armed

Forces from entering into correctional facilities to present decorations

to persons who commit certain crimes before being presented such decorations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 7, 1998

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit members

of the Armed Forces from entering into correctional facilities to present decorations to persons who commit

certain crimes before being presented such decorations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2050 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ENTRY INTO CORRECTIONAL

2 FACILITIES FOR PRESENTATION OF DECORA3 TIONS TO PERSONS WHO COMMIT CERTAIN

4 CRIMES BEFORE PRESENTATION.

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Chapter 57 of title 10, United

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow7 ing:

8 ‘‘§ 1132. Presentation of decorations: prohibition on

9 entering into correctional facilities for

10 certain presentations

11 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—No member of the armed forces

12 may enter into a Federal, State, or local correctional facil13 ity for purposes of presenting a decoration to a person

14 who has been convicted of a serious violent felony.

15 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

16 ‘‘(1) The term ‘decoration’ means any decora17 tion or award that may be presented or awarded to

18 a member of the armed forces.

19 ‘‘(2) The term ‘serious violent felony’ has the

20 meaning given that term in section 3359(c)(2)(F) of

21 title 18.’’.

22 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

23 at the beginning of that chapter is amended by adding

24 at the end the following:
3

•S 2050 IS

‘‘1132. Presentation of decorations: prohibition on entering into correctional facilities for certain presentations.’’.

Æ
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2006 

To amend SAFETEA–LU to ensure that projects that assist the establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems are eligible for certain 

grants, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend SAFETEA–LU to ensure that projects that assist 

the establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems 

are eligible for certain grants, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Aerotropolis Act of 

5 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2006 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFI2 CANCE. 

3 (a) ELIGIBLE PROJECT DEFINED.—Section 

4 1301(c)(2) of SAFETEA–LU (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECT.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘eligible 

8 project’ means any surface transportation 

9 project eligible for Federal assistance under 

10 title 23, United States Code, including freight 

11 railroad projects and activities eligible under 

12 such title. 

13 ‘‘(B) INCLUSION OF AEROTROPOLIS

14 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROJECTS.—The 

15 term ‘eligible project’ includes a combination of 

16 projects described in subparagraph (A) that, as 

17 a group— 

18 ‘‘(i) assist the establishment of an 

19 aerotropolis transportation system; and 

20 ‘‘(ii) satisfy the requirement under 

21 subsection (d).’’. 

22 (b) AEROTROPOLIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DE23 FINED.—Section 1301(c) of SAFETEA–LU (23 U.S.C. 

24 101 note) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

25 ‘‘(4) AEROTROPOLIS TRANSPORTATION SYS26 TEM.—The term ‘aerotropolis transportation system’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2006 IH

1 means a planned and coordinated multimodal freight 

2 and passenger transportation network that, as deter3 mined by the Secretary, provides efficient, cost-effec4 tive, sustainable, and intermodal connectivity to a 

5 defined region of economic significance centered 

6 around a major airport.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS
                          OF US GLOBAL NANOSPACE, INC.
                            PURSUANT TO 18 USCss.1350

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the
undersigned officers of US Global Nanospace, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

            (a) The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (b) Information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  November 15, 2004


/s/ John Robinson
---------------------------------------
John Robinson,
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Julie Seaman
---------------------------------------
Julie Seaman,
Chief Financial Officer
#### S. Harvey-Cook, Respondent, v Burton B. Steel, Appellant.

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of grand larceny in the third degree, admitting that he received Medicaid funds through the submission of claims for psychiatric services that were never performed. As part of his sentence, he was required to, and did, make restitution.

Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced an action pursuant to Social Services Law § 145-b to recover three times the amount the defendant fraudulently obtained. Following the service of the defendant’s answer, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Special Term permitted the defendant to set off the amount already paid in restitution *(see,*Penal Law § 60.27 [6]), but otherwise granted the plaintiffs motion.

The defendant argues that the instant action should have been barred on double jeopardy grounds. However, the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy and double punishment do not prevent the enactment and enforcement of civil as well as criminal sanctions for the same conduct *(see, Matter of Barnes v Tofany,*27 NY2d 74, 78; *United States ex*
      *710
      *rel. Marcus v Hess,*317 US 537, 549). The question is whether the sanction imposed is essentially criminal or civil in nature *(see, Matter of Barnes v Tofany, supra),*and is one of statutory construction *(see, Helvering v Mitchell,*303 US 391, 399).

A reading of Social Services Law § 145-b and its accompanying legislative memorandum *(see,*Memorandum of State Executive Department, 1975 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 1686-1687), demonstrates that the Legislature intended this provision to be a civil statute imposing civil sanctions. The fact that this section calls for the recovery of an amount greater than the amount of actual damages provides no basis for the invalidation of the provision, which is a remedial sanction enforceable by civil proceedings *(see, United States ex rel. Marcus v Hess, supra,*at pp 550-551). Nor is the prescribed measure of recovery so unreasonable or excessive that it transforms what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty *(see, One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v United States,*409 US 232, 237). Accordingly, the sanction imposed in the case at bar is remedial in nature, and recovery is not barred by double jeopardy.

We have considered the remainder of the defendant’s contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1954 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1954

To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment in commodity 
  pools similar to the exemption provided for general solicitation of 
       securities under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 2015

 Mr. Fincher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment in commodity 
  pools similar to the exemption provided for general solicitation of 
       securities under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

    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 ``Energize Emerging Opportunities 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR GENERAL SOLICITATION OF INVESTMENT IN COMMODITY 
              POOLS.

    Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall--
            (1) revise section 4.7(b) of title 17, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), to read as 
        follows:
    ``(b) Relief available to commodity pool operators. Upon filing the 
notice required by paragraph (d) of this section, and subject to 
compliance with the conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section, any registered commodity pool operator who sells 
participations in a pool solely to qualified eligible persons in an 
offering which qualifies for exemption from the registration 
requirements of the Securities Act pursuant to section 4(2) of that Act 
or pursuant to Regulation S, 17 CFR 230.901 et seq., and any bank 
registered as a commodity pool operator in connection with a pool that 
is a collective trust fund whose securities are exempt from 
registration under the Securities Act pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of 
that Act and are sold solely to qualified eligible persons, may claim 
any or all of the following relief with respect to such pool:''; and
            (2) revise section 4.13(a)(3)(i) of such title to read as 
        follows:
    ``(i) Interests in the pool are exempt from registration under the 
Securities Act of 1933, and such interests are offered and sold 
pursuant to section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the regulations 
thereunder;''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2009330EN.01009501.xml

| 16.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 330/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 330/95

---

GUIDELINE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 10 December 2009

amending Guideline ECB/2008/18 on temporary changes to the rules relating to eligibility of collateral

(ECB/2009/24)

(2009/963/EU)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular to the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and in particular Article 12.1 and Article 14.3, in conjunction with the first indent of Article 3.1, Article 18.2 and the first paragraph of Article 20 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) has decided to prolong the widening of certain eligibility criteria for collateral laid down in Guideline ECB/2008/18 of 21 November 2008 on temporary changes to the rules relating to eligibility of collateral (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) has decided to prolong the widening of certain eligibility criteria for collateral laid down in Guideline ECB/2008/18 of 21 November 2008 on temporary changes to the rules relating to eligibility of collateral (1).

| (2) | It is therefore necessary to amend Guideline ECB/2008/18 accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It is therefore necessary to amend Guideline ECB/2008/18 accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS GUIDELINE:

Article 1

Guideline ECB/2008/18 is amended as follows:

Article 10(2) is replaced by the following:

‘This Guideline shall apply from 1 December 2008 until 31 December 2010 or until the maturity date of the last 12-month refinancing operation launched by 31 December 2010, whichever is the latest.’

Article 2

Entry into force

1.   This Guideline shall enter into force two days following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2.   It shall apply from 1 January 2010.

Article 3

Addressees and implementing measures

1.   This Guideline is addressed to the national central banks (NCBs) of participating Member States.

2.   The NCBs shall notify the ECB of the means by which they intend to comply with this Guideline.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 10 December 2009.

For the Governing Council of the ECB

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---

(1)  
  OJ L 314, 25.11.2008, p. 14.

1

---