alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting, January 26, 2023 

ACTION ITEMS, MOTIONS, and VOTES

MOTIONS 

Adoption of Meeting Minutes

Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Vice-Chair, approved the meeting minutes from October 12-13, 2022 

with changes received from Larry Stevens, GCWC. 

VOTES 

Motion on the Nonnative Fish Strategic Plan: 

The TWG provides the draft Nonnative Fish Strategic Plan, as developed through the 

Smallmouth Bass Ad Hoc Group, to the Adaptive Management Work Group for their

consideration in response to the Acting Secretary’s Designee’s request from the August 

2022 AMWG meeting.

[Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (GCWC)] Moves to adopt the motion. 

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Seconds the motion. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The motion does not 

have consensus, so the following voice vote was taken per TWG operating procedures: 

Hualapai: Not present

Hopi: Yes, because it contains mitigation language and multiple options

Zuni: No, cannot support a plan that contains lethal management options

CREDA: Yes, but with WAPA’s reservations about excessive amounts of bycatch

All others: Yes.

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Motion passes with a majority vote

NEW ACTION ITEMS

• Request to include a link to the Action Items and Motions document in future 

agendas. 

• Martina Dawley (Hualapai) requests that Reclamation assist with a visit to the 

Southwest Native Aquatic Resource and Recovery Center in Dexter, New Mexico, 

to learn more about the razorback sucker hybridization study.

• Kirk Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni, requests that Reclamation visit the leaders of the 

Zuni Tribe regarding the 14-day review period for the nonnative plan.
Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Industri-Matematik International Corp. on Form S-8 (SEC file
no. 333-19737), Form S-8 (SEC file no. 333-25407), Form S-8 (SEC file no.
333-81905), Form S-8 (SEC file no. 333-92953), and Form S-8 (SEC file no.
333-60876) of our report dated July 5, 2002, relating to the Consolidated
Financial Statements of Industri-Matematik International Corp. as of April
30, 2002 and 2001, and for the years ended April 30, 2002, 2001 and 2000,
which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers AB

By: /s/ ROBERT BARNDEN
    Robert Barnden

Stockholm, Sweden
July 5, 2002
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 15, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00533

- CR

Jesse GARZA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Be xar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7759W

Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is

ex tended to January 13, 2016. No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating

circumstances.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, C hief Justice

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

court on this 15th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### HEWITT, Respondent, v. CHADWICK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 16, 1896.)

Action by Edwin H. Hewitt against John Chadwick. W. B. Simson, for appellant. P. M. Sullivan, for respondent

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 144.
Order filed January 15, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00594-CV

____________

MOHAMED ALOUI D/B/A FSD FLOORS & REMODELING, Appellant

V.

LINDA HOSFORD, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1036796

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due January 2, 2015. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before February 17, 

2015, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

DAKOTA M. DERRY,

No. 6:16-cv-00066-PK

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

COMMISSONER, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On April 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation 

(“F&R”) [23], recommending that the Commissioner’s decision should be REVERSED and 

REMANDED for an immediate payment of benefits. Neither party objected to the F&R. 

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)(1)(C). However, the court 

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

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

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)(1)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 

[23] as my own opinion. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for an 

immediate calculation and payment of benefits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this _____ day of April, 2017. 

___________________________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

Chief United States District Judge 

25

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman
EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of IDX Systems Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Richard E. Tarrant, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John A. Kane,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.



                                /S/RICHARD E. TARRANT
                                ---------------------------------------
Dated:  August 14, 2002         Richard E. Tarrant
                                Chief Executive Officer



                                 /S/ JOHN A. KANE
                                 ---------------------------------------
Dated:  August 14, 2002          John A. Kane
                                 Sr. Vice President, Finance and Administration,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
NORTH BRANCH CONEJOS RIVER NEAR CONEJOSLatitude: 37.102Longitude: -106.009Elevation: None

NORTH BRANCH CONEJOS RIVER NEAR CONEJOS

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

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



Lily Pond
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2081 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam. 

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

•HR 2081 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY 

2 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT IN3 VOLVING GIBSON DAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the require5 ments of section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

6 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy 

7 Regulatory Commission project numbered 12478–003, the 

8 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in 

9 this section as the ‘‘Commission’’) may, at the request of 

10 the licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice 

11 and in accordance with the procedures of the Commission 

12 under that section, extend the time period during which 

13 the licensee is required to commence construction of the 

14 project for a 6-year period that begins on the date de15 scribed in subsection (b). 

16 (b) DATE DESCRIBED.—The date described in this 

17 subsection is the date of the expiration of the extension 

18 of the period required for commencement of construction 

19 for the project described in subsection (a) that was issued 

20 by the Commission prior to the date of enactment of this 
3 

•HR 2081 EH

1 Act under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

2 806). 

Passed the House of Representatives March 15, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2081 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of conGibson Dam. struction of a hydroelectric project involving the
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED, PURSUANT TO SECTION

906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with the Annual Report of Document Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John L. McGannon, in my capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 24, 2005 |  | /s/ John L. McGannon                                          
|                      |  | John L. McGannon                                              
|                      |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<CASH>                                         2,360,427
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    208,716
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,678,761
<PP&E>                                         342,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                 23,067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,284,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          505,002
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       9,545,858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (9,561,242)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,384,616
<SALES>                                        12,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,580
<CGS>                                          4,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             31,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,369,134)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,369,134)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,369,134)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.60)
        

</TABLE>
OR\G\NAL 

Jfn tbe Wniteb ~tates QCourt of jf eberal QClaims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-0llV FILED Filed: June 27, 2017 

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

* 

EDITH MARRERO-FUOG, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

v. * 

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

* 

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

JUN 2 7 20\7 

OSM 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

Failure to Prosecute; 

Failure to Follow Court 

Orders; Dismissal 

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 

On January 5, 2017, I filed an Initial Order requiring Edith Marrero-Fuog (the 

Petitioner) to file the medical records that are relevant to this case, or a status report, by 

February 2 I, 2017. However, Petitioner neither filed the medical records, nor filed a 

request for additional time to do so. On March 3, 2017, I filed an Order directing 

Petitioner to file her overdue status report immediately. Petitioner did not respond to that 

Order. On April 17, 2017, I filed another Order directing Petitioner to file her overdue 

status report immediately. Petitioner has not responded. 

Since filing her Petition on January 4, 2017, Petitioner has not filed any medical 

records, or any other document to support her claim. On May 17, 2017, I filed a "Final 

Warning" indicating that this petition would be dismissed if Petitioner failed to respond. 

Again, Petitioner has not responded. 

Petitioner has not prosecuted this case or responded to court orders, nor has she 

offered any explanation for her failure to do so. It is Petitioner's duty to prosecute her 

case, and to follow court orders. Tsekouras v. Secy, HHS, 26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff'd 

per curiam, 991F.2d810 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sapharas v. Sec'y, HHS, 35 Fed. Cl. 503 

( 1996); Vaccine Rule 21 (b). Accordingly, this case is dismissed for failure to 

prosecute and failure to follow court orders. The clerk shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

,#7~ George L. Hasifi1is:Jf> 

Special Master 

REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION

JUL 27 2017

OSM

U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
[Smith, Goolsby, Artis & Reams, P.S.C. Letterhead]


Board of Directors
Classic Bancshares, Inc.


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated statement of condition as of
December 31, 2000 and the related consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income for the three and nine month periods ended December 31,
2000 and 1999, and cash flows for the nine month periods ended December 31, 2000
and 1999, in accordance with Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review
Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The
financial statements are the responsibility of the corporation's management.

A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying
analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons
responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in
scope than an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated statements of financial condition as of March 31,
2000, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein) and in our report dated May 26, 2000, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying consolidated statement of financial
condition as of March 31, 2000, is fairly stated, in all material reports, in
relation to the consolidated statement of financial condition from which it has
been derived.

/s/ Smith, Goolsby, Artis & Reams, P.S.C.

Ashland, Kentucky
February 7, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 190 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 190

    To make foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers 
                   permanent, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2015

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers 
                   permanent, 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 ``Making Servicemember Foreclosure 
Protections Permanent Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED 
              SERVICES RELATING TO MORTGAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND 
              EVICTION MADE PERMANENT.

    Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for 
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-154; 126 Stat. 1208) 
is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (3).
                                 <all>
```
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

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

      Storage                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json
NUMBER 13-23-00349-CR

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

IN RE CARY D. CANTWELL

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

Relator Cary D. Cantwell filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus through which 

he asserts that the trial court has failed in its ministerial duty to rule on relator’s application 

for writ of habeas corpus. 

In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary 

or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged 

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); 

In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 

In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the 

relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be 

denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). 

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus 

relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 

424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a 

pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary 

relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement 

of facts and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate 

citations to authorities and to the appendix or record. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 

(governing the form and contents of a petition in an original appellate proceeding seeking 

extraordinary relief). Further, the relator must file a record sufficient to support the claim 

for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record); 

In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. 

proceeding); In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, orig. 

proceeding).
3

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the lack of a record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his 

burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the

8th day of August, 2023.
#### People *ex rel.*Van Hise, Appellant, *v.*Board of Police Commissioners, Respondents.

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

July 7, 1890.)

No opinion. Proceedings reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements.