alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Flaming Gorge Technical Working 

Group

June 12, 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, based off of the June Final Forecast provided by the Colorado 

River Basin Forecast Center (CBRFC), 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, 

placing it in the average (above median) hydrologic classification (Figure 1). The projected 

runoff volume for the Yampa River Basin is 755,000 acre-feet, placing it in the moderately dry 

classification (Figure 2).

Figure 1 - Current year hydrologic classification for Green River above Flaming Gorge compared to historical record.
Figure 2 - Current year hydrologic classification for Yampa River Basin compared to historical record.
Green River at Jensen, UT gage projections

A graph of Green River flow projections at the Jensen, UT gage is given in Figure 3. This figure 

includes current daily average release flows of 1,800 cfs from Flaming Gorge Dam. 

Figure 3 - CBRFC projection for the Green River at Jensen, UT, June 12 - June 23, 2018.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Kromhout, Appellant.

We find no basis in the record for disturbing the County Court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          59,524
<SECURITIES>                                   530,490
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,597,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,753
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          44,963
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,648,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           378
<OTHER-SE>                                     442,907
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,648,810
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,299
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,047
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,158
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,678
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 District of Oregon

CARAVAN AIR, LLC

3:16-cv-00152-PK

SEAPORT AIRLINES, INC.

Seaport Airlines, Inc. 

c/o John Beardsley 

Registered Agent 

7505 NE Airport Way 

Portland, Oregon 97218

Stuart Smith, OSB #044209 

Paramount Law Group 

8 N. State Street, Suite 301 

Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034

01/29/2016 By: s/D. St. Germain, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:16-cv-00152-PK Document 4 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

3:16-cv-00152-PK 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 3:16-cv-00152-PK Document 4 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19530]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1096-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreement 
Update (SoCal Sept-Oct 2021) to be effective 9/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210902-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-921-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Refund Report: RP20-921 Refund Report to be effective 
N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210902-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19530 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a
director or officer, or both, of BLOWOUT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint STEVE BERNS and
THOMAS D. BERKOMPAS, with full power to each of them to act alone, as the true
and lawful attorneys and agents of the undersigned, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution to each of said attorneys to execute, file or
deliver any and all instruments and to do all acts and things which said
attorneys and agents, or any of them, deem advisable to enable the Company to
comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any
requirements or regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission in respect
thereof, in connection with the Company's filing of an annual report on Form
10-K for the Company's fiscal year 1997, including specifically, but without
limitation of the general authority hereby granted, the power and authority to
sign his name as a director or officer, or both, of the Company, as indicated
below opposite his signature, to the Form 10-K, and any amendment thereto; and
each of the undersigned does hereby fully ratify and confirm all that said
attorneys and agents, or any of them, or the substitute of any of them, shall do
or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of
Attorney as of this 22nd day of February, 1998.


/s/ THOMAS D. BERKOMPAS
--------------------------------
THOMAS D. BERKOMPAS                         Chief Financial Officer - Principal
                                            Financial and Accounting Officer)

/s/ STEVE BERNS
--------------------------------
STEVE BERNS                                 Director and President
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ GENE GIAQUINTO
--------------------------------
EUGENE F. GIAQUINTO                         Chairman of the Board of Directors


/s/ BILL LEVINE
--------------------------------
BILL LEVINE                                 Director

/s/ MUNEAKI MASUDA
--------------------------------
MUNEAKI MASUDA                              Director

/s/ YOSHINORI OGIDA
--------------------------------
YOSHINORI OGIDA                             Director


/s/ SETH REAMES
--------------------------------
SETH A. REAMES                              Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Arbor Software Corporation Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements
of Income.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,285
<SECURITIES>                                    19,311
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,105)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,359
<PP&E>                                          17,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,884)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,149
<SALES>                                         18,007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,007
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,147
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (32)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,266)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,008
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,156
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMISSION, No. 3:16-cv-00438-PK

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

AEQUITAS MANAGEMENT, LLC; AEQUITAS

HOLDINGS, LLC; AEQUITAS COMMERCIAL

FINANCE, LLC; AEQUITAS CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT, INC.; AEQUITAS

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; ROBERT

J. JESENIK; BRIAN A. OLIVER; and N. SCOTT

GILLIS, 

Defendants. 

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued an Opinion & Order [470] on July 7, 2017, ordering

that Individual Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [428] be denied. Individual Defendants 

have timely filed objections [479] to the Opinion & Order. The matter is now before the Court 
2 – ORDER 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). When a party 

objects to a nondispositive matter, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely 

objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The Court has carefully considered Individual Defendants’ objections and concludes that 

no part of the Opinion & Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

CONCLUSION

The Court declines to modify or set aside any part of the Opinion & Order [470].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2017. 

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge
# L_2010252EN.01013501.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 252/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 252/135

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 5 May 2010

on the closure of the accounts of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2008

(2010/515/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2008,

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2008, together with the Agency’s replies (1),

having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 — C7-0061/2010),

having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 of 5 December 2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction (3), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0072/2010),

| 1. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Agency for Reconstruction, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The President

Jerzy BUZEK

The Secretary-General

Klaus WELLE

---

(1)  
  OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p. 43.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 7.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

4

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SUSAN RISLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

MOSMAN,J., 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

No. 6:16-cv-00466-AC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On October 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [24], recommending that Susan Risley's Unopposed Motion for 

Attorney Fees [21] should be GRANTED. No objection was filed. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F &R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [24] 

as my own opinion. 

Attorneys' fees in the amount of $12,861.50 are hereby awarded to Attorney Tim 

Wilborn pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Previously, this court awarded fees pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When issuing the§ 406(b) check, the 

agency is directed to subtract the amount of the EAJA fee previously received by the attorney 

and to send to Plaintiffs attorney, Tim Wilborn, at the address above, the balance of $7,485.73, 

minus any user fee. Any amount withheld after all administrative and court attorney fees are paid 

should be released to the claimant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this __ day of March, 2018. 

Chief United Stat 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1940 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1940

   To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule 
   regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 2015

 Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Blumenauer, 
  Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Titus, Mr. McClintock, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
 Massie, Mr. Polis, Mr. Amash, and Mr. Pocan) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule 
   regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA.

    Part G of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 710. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of 
this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person 
acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, 
possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of 
marihuana.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Panayota Bletas et al., Appellants, v Subway International B.V., Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 130]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered September 9, 2011, denying the petition to vacate two arbitration awards, denying petitioners’ motions to renew a prior petition, to disqualify respondent’s counsel, and to stay the proceeding, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners failed to show that the petition was served on a person authorized to receive service of process pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1). The provision of the parties’ franchise agreements on which petitioners rely concerns only service of a notice required by the agreements, not service of process required by the CPLR. Moreover, commencement of the proceeding was untimely, since the purported service occurred more than 90 days after the awards were received *(see Werner Enters. Co. v New York City Law Dept.,*281 AD2d 253 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 601 [2001]).

In any event, the petition fails to present a basis for vacating the arbitration awards. The omission of a reference to a tax withholding requirement from one of the awards does not create an explicit conflict with any law or public policy requiring tax withholding *(see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York,*94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]).

We have reviewed petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32327(11).]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2014

No. 04-14-00472-CV

ARC PARKLANE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Arvel SEALS, Jr.,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-10177

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal because the issue presented 

in this appeal is the same issue previously decided by this court and now pending before the 

Texas Supreme Court in Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Perez, 406 S.W.3d 313, pet. granted). 

We grant the motion. For administrative purposes, this appeal will be treated as a closed case

unless and until a motion to reinstate is filed and granted. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court