alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HUALAPAI NATIVE FISH REARING FAC

Hualapai Reservation, Peach Springs, Arizo
PURPOSE

 Address the immediate need for a reari

facility for Razorback suckers (Xyrauchetexanus), Humpback chub (Gila cypha), 

other endangered and/or native species

 Design and implement plans to recover

native species inGrand Canyon and oth

areas.
BACKGROUND

 March of 1995. BOR funded a Feasibilit

for the Construction and Operation of a

Endangered Fish Rearing Facility on the

Hualapai Reservation.

 November of 1995. BOR funded the

EnvironmentalAssessment of this proje

 Frazier Wells was chosen as the Preferr
AMOUNT OF MONEY INVESTED 

DATE

 BOR $260,000 BIA FISH HATCHERY MAINTENANCE ‐

$108,000

 HUALAPAIWILDLIFE, FISHERIES,AND

PARKS

 ‐

$225,0

 USFWSTWG ‐ $267,376
WELL HOUSE

 Drilled in 1973 Depth to water is at

160’

 6” casing

WELL HOUSE Drilled in 1973 Depth to water is at 160’6” casingWater Temperature 50 F 
AQUIFER TEST

*Continuous sustainability of 40

gal/min without significant impact

to the other wells in the area

*Continuous sustainability of 40 gal/min without significant impact to the other wells in the area 
SUMP PUMP 

• Re-circulates the wde-nitrification pond of the ponds without the well • Powered by electric
PROPANE GAS GENERATOR

*21KW *For use during times of no electricity 


FISH DATA (Non-intensive Rearing of Fish) 

► 2000 Received ~2,000 3” – 5” and distributed 

equally to two ponds. 

► 6/2003 Sampled one pond. Fish lengths average 

310mm and average weight 280. 

► 2/2006 Received ~5,000 juvenile razorbacks ranging 

between 3”-6”. Distributed equally to ponds #3 and #4. 

► 10/2008 Removed more than 500 razorbacks from 

pond #8 and taken to Bubbling Ponds for Conditioning and study. Fish average length was 320 mm. 

► 2/2012 USFWS Parker office removed remaining to stock into 

back waters of Lake Havasu Lake. Average fish length 450 mm. 


Future of Hualapai Tribe Native Fish Rearing Fac

Based on data collected and validated information the faciliof rearing 2500 fish annually with a growth rate of 30 -50 mCost for 1 Full Time Employee. $45,000 a year Cost to for pond Maintenance 

Total $65,000 $20,000
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEB 17, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-12817 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 5:09-cr-00071-CAR-CWH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLAUDIO LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Georgia

 ________________________

(February 17, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Claudio Lopez appeals his sentence of 55 months’ imprisonment after

pleading guilty to illegally re-entering the United States after having previously
been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal, Lopez argues that

his sentence was unreasonable. 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The

party who challenges the sentence must establish that the sentence is unreasonable

in the light of both the record and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United

States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). 

In this case, Lopez has not met his burden to show that his sentence, which

fell in the middle of the guideline range, was unreasonable. The record belies his

argument that the district court failed to consider his arguments in mitigation. Nor

does the record support his argument that the court failed to provide a sentencing

rationale. Indeed, the district court emphasized Lopez’s extensive criminal

history, which included numerous drug convictions and placed him in the highest

criminal history category. Although the district court relied primarily on this

factor, such reliance was not unreasonable given the severity of Lopez’s criminal

history. The record further belies Lopez’s argument that the district court treated

the Guidelines as mandatory, rather than advisory. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 10.39

REVISED SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT

APPLICABLE TO THE COMPANYS NAMED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS

As of March 12, 2008, the following represents the compensation of the executive officers of NMT Medical, Inc. (the
Company):



|                                                                     |  |                   |         |                                 |   |                                               |  |       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ------- | ------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------- |  | ------
|                                                                     |  | 2008 Compensation
|Executive Officer                                                    |  | AnnualSalary      |         | Bonus for WorkPerformed in 2007 |   | Shares UnderlyingStock OptionsGranted in 2007
|John E. AhernPresident and Chief Executive Officer                   |  | $                 | 460,000 |                                 | $ | 55,000                                        |  | 45,750
|Richard E. DavisExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | $                 | 345,000 |                                 | $ | 43,000                                        |  | 31,750
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Calvin E. Jenness, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)            The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(ii)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periodsexpressed in the report.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Blount International, Inc. and will be retained by BlountInternational, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

 

Date:November 9, 2010

 

 
| /s/  Calvin E. Jenness     |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Calvin  E. Jenness         |   |
| Senior  Vice President and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer    |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7156

TOMMY RAY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; POLICE CHIEF;KELLY SMITH, Officer; RICHARD RUTLEDGE, Officer; M. T. HARDING, Officer; MICHAEL PRICE, Officer; UNIDENTIFIED MD STATE TROOPER; V. WILLIAM, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and THOMAS M. MARTIN, Detective; RICHARD WITTE, Detective; NORMAN SNYDER, Detective; K-9 DINO;MICHAEL MARTIN, Officer; SUSAN REIDER, Officer; VICTORIA PLANK, Officer; KEITH FISHER, Officer, WILLIAM SEIFERT, Officer; NATHAN RETTIG, Officer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-94- 393-AMD) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 19992 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Ray Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara McFaul Cook, County Solicitor, Rebecca Ann Laws, COUNTY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Tommy Ray Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Howard County Police Dep’t , No. CA-94-393-AMD (D. Md. July 13, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Mark Anthony BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeff CONWAY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-35356.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Mark Anthony Brown, Boise, ID, pro se.

L. Lamont Anderson, Esq., AGID—Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Anthony Brown, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Brown contends that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective for failing to challenge the lack of certain definitions in the jury instructions. Upon review, we conclude that Brown has failed to show that his attorneys committed unprofessional errors that were prejudicial to his case. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 694-95, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We conclude that the decision of the Idaho Court of Appeals denying Brown’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, and the district court properly denied the petition. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Strickland,*466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

We construe Brown’s uncertified contentions as a motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability, and we deny the motion. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51362-51363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Notice of Special Interest (NOSI) 
on Pan-Coronavirus Vaccine Development Program Projects.
    Date: October 6-8, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Brenda Lange-Gustafson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific

[[Page 51363]]

Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of 
Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 
669-5047, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e280859791968384918d8ca28c8b838b86cc8c8b8acc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b090c1e181f0a0d1804052b05020a020f45050203450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 9, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19874 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# L_2010252EN.01022201.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 252/222 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 252/222

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 5 May 2010

on the closure of the accounts of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority for the financial year 2008

(2010/551/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority for the financial year 2008,

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority for the financial year 2008, together with the Authority’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 1321/2004 of 12 July 2004 on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio-navigation programmes (3), and in particular Article 12 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 (A7-0073/2010),

| 1. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority for the financial year 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Executive Director of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority, 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. 100.

1

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

2

(3)  
  OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 1.

3

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

4

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
September 30, 1997 Financial Statements included in Form 10-Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      718
<ALLOWANCES>                                       109
<INVENTORY>                                         91
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,302
<PP&E>                                           5,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                     810
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,472
<BONDS>                                          3,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,916
<OTHER-SE>                                         453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,187
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,897
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    35
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    38
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    639
<INCOME-TAX>                                       276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.87
        

</TABLE>
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Andre Juste

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20

- 383 (UNA)

)

Hiram E. Puig

- Lugo

, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a

case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted , is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant ).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident

. He has sue d Associate Judge Puig

- Lugo of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia for “the sum of [$]25,000,000.” Compl. at 9. The

complaint sets out four claims for relief: the first alleges violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 552a ; the second alleges violations of th e Fifth Amendment’s d ue p rocess c lause ; the third

alleges obstruction of justice; and the fo urth alleges legal malpractice. Compl. at 10

- 13. All of

the claims, to the extent intelligib le, are based on defendant’s “rulings against” plaintiff. Id . at 14.

An “ in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous

. . . if it is clear from

the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims

asserted. ” Crisafi v. Holland 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. Additionally, a complaint

that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v.2 Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Judges enjoy absolute immunity from suits , such as this,

based on acts taken in their judicial capacity, so long as they have jurisdiction over the subject

matter. Moore v. Burger , 655 F.2d 1265, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (citing cases). Such

“ immunity is a n immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages. ” Mireles v.

Waco , 502 U.S. 9 , 11 (1991) . In addition, a complaint against judges who ha ve “ done nothing

more than their duty ” is “a meritless action.” Fleming v. United States , 847 F. S upp. 170, 172

(D.D.C. 1994)

, cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with

prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________s/_____________

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

Date: April 6

, 2020 United States District Judge
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1895 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit oil and gas 

preleasing, leasing, and related activities in certain areas of the Outer 

Continental Shelf off the coast of Florida, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2015 

Ms. CASTOR of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit 

oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities in 

certain areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off the 

coast of Florida, 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 ‘‘Florida Coastal Protec5 tion Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1895 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS 

2 PRELEASING, LEASING, AND RELATED AC3 TIVITIES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF THE COAST 

4 OF FLORIDA. 

5 Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

6 (43 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(i) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS

9 PRELEASING, LEASING, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES IN

10 CERTAIN AREAS OFF THE COAST OF FLORIDA.— 

11 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other 

12 provision of this section or any other law, the Sec13 retary may not offer for oil and gas leasing or 

14 preleasing or any related activity, any tract located 

15 in— 

16 ‘‘(A) any area of the Eastern Gulf of Mex17 ico that is referred to in section 104(a) of the 

18 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006; 

19 ‘‘(B) the portion of the South Atlantic 

20 Planning Area south of 30 degrees 43 minutes 

21 North Latitude; or 

22 ‘‘(C) the Straits of Florida Planning Area. 

23 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON EFFECT.—Nothing in this 

24 subsection affects any right under any lease issued 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1895 IH

1 under this Act before the date of enactment of this 

2 subsection.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Texas

- New Mexico Power Company

, Relator

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 1 07 5

- CV

Trial court case number: 201 7

- 64096

Trial court: 2 3 4th District Court o f Harris County

On December 6 , 2018

, r elator, Texas

- New Mexico Power Company , filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge to vacate his October 8, 2018 order denying relator’s motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice and to compel respondent to enter an order of dismissal for want of subject

- matter jurisdiction for relator

. Relator has included a n appendix w ith i t s petition.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k), 52.7.

With t h e petition, relator also filed a n opposed “Motion for Stay Pending Ruling on
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus ” s eeking a temporary stay of the underlying
trial court proceeding

, pending disposition of th i s petition . Relator’ s motion contain s the required certificate of compliance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(a).

Accordingly, the Court grants the relator’ s motion and ORDERS that the underlying trial court proceeding i s stayed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(b). Th is stay i s effective until the petition in this Court is finally decided or this Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(b). Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Laura C. Higley

____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: _ December 7, 2018

___