alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Status Review

• The three specific statutory requirements, set forth in section 

4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA, are that each plan incorporates the 

following:

• 1. A description of site-specific management actions necessary 

to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of 

the species;

• 2. Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would 

result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of 

this section, that the species be removed from the list; and

• 3. Estimates of the time required and cost to carry out those 

measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve 

intermediate steps toward that goal.
BUDGET
The longer timeline for the budget process is as follows:

• January – reporting meeting, TWG provide issue/priorities 

for DOI to consider, GCMRC provide annual reports using 

agreed‐upon format used in 2009 and 2010

• February – DOI provides and discusses workplan priorities, 

major issues, discuss at AMWG

• March – draft workplan to Assistant Secretary for review

• April – TWG review of initial budget spreadsheet and 

workplan, technical issues to DOI for consideration and 

response

• May – BAHG review of initial full workplan provided by DOI, 

response by DOI on technical issues

• June – TWG recommendation on workplan to AMWG with 

policy issues, and remaining technical issues to DOI directly
BUDGET

I propose that we follow up the TWG with a BAHG 

meeting within the next two weeks to finalize the 

list of concerns. Proposed timeline:

• At TWG, briefing and questions. Take notes and 

develop your concerns/direction for DOI.

• By Feb. 8 all budget concerns to Mary Orton. 

• By Feb. 9 synthesis of concerns provided to BAHG 

and TWG by Mary Orton. ALSO OUT TO TWG 

WITH DRAFT

• Feb. 14 BAHG conference call from 9-12 to 

finalize list to GCMRC/Reclamation.
Other documents being developed by GCMRC to 

help guide the biennial workplan are:

• Strategic science plan (SSP) and monitoring 

and research plan (MRP) for the next 5 years: 

under development and will be combined into 

one document. A review process has not been 

articulated yet. 

• FY 2011 annual reports: provided to TWG.
Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Temperature Jan 2020 – April 4 2022

4/6/20

11/1/20

2/17/21

10/6/21

2/24/22
Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Dissolved Oxygen Jan 2020 – April 4 2022
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Temperature, °C

Lake Powell Release Temperature 

Projected Temperature based on Dec 2021 Forecast

Dec 2021 Most Probable Hydrology Dec 2021 Min Probable Hydrology

Dec 2021 Max Probable Hydrology Monthly average Temp LF

profile

#Projection start date is based on initial conditions (March 2021)

Historic Projected

Feb 9 2022 profile penstock temperature March 7 2022 profile penstock temperature
EXHIBIT
10.51


 


AMENDMENT
TO


PURCHASE
OF INVENTORY AND REPURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE OF INVENTORY AND REPURCHASE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into among Edison Nation,
Inc. (“Edison Nation”), and Fergco Bros, LLC the undersigned parties and/or their nominees (“Purchaser - Assignee”):


 


WHEREAS,
the parties entered into that certain Purchase of Inventory and Repurchase Agreement (“Agreement”) dated as of May
7, 2020;


 


WHEREAS,
the pursuant to Section 3 of the Agreement, Edison Nation has the right to repurchase the inventory by May 15, 2020 and
the parties hereto desire to extend the repurchase date to June 30, 2020;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE,
for good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to the following terms of the Amendment. 


 


	 	1.	Section
    3 to the Agreement is replaced with the following:


 


Repurchase
of Inventory. Edison Nation has the right to repurchase the Inventory Purchaser - Assignor for $105,000 (the “Repurchase
Price”) in whole or in periodic installments by June 30, 2020.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGES TO FOLLOW]


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


WHEREFORE
each of the parties has accepted and agreed by affixing their respective authorized
signatures below as of the date first above written.


 


	EDISON NATION, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	Brett Vroman, CFO	 
	 	 	 
	Fergco Bros, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	Chris Ferguson	 
	Title:	Authorized Agent
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Inter-American Foundation

      ( print page 48241)    

# TIME AND DATE:

August 30, 2021, 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.

# PLACE:

Via tele-conference.

# STATUS:

Meeting of the IAF Board of Director, closed to the public as provided for by 22 CFR 1004.4(b)

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 Executive Session

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Aswathi Zachariah, General Counsel, (202) 683-7118.

*For Dial-in Information Contact:*                         Karen Vargas, Board Liaison, (202) 524-8869.                    

The Inter-American Foundation is holding this meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

Aswathi Zachariah,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2021-18569 Filed 8-25-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7025-01-P
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

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

Case 3:16-cv-00684-SI Document 6 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) 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:

Case 3:16-cv-00684-SI Document 6 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2
Biological Asp

Biological Asp

of Warm Wa

of Warm Wa

Science Pla

Science Pla

Backwater Habitat Monito

Backwater Habitat Monito

Native Fishes Native Fishes
Sample Locations

0 50 100 150 200 250

RIVER MILE

Trammel net Hoop net - baited Seine

Trammel net Hoop net - baited Seine

July 17-August 2, 2002

Sept. 12-Sept. 25, 2002
Selection of Backw

Selection of Backw

 "backwater" every 1-2 miles. D

a back water is near zero velocany size. Seine the area furtheriver.
Parameters Measur

Parameters Measur

Backwaters Backwaters

 shoreline habitat, temperature, 

cover type are habitat variables 
Table 4. Number of seine hauls and fish species captured by reach during Trip 

REACH SEINE HAULS BHS CRP FHM FMS HBC RBT RSH 

1 02 20 6 3 3 2 8 4 15 06 10 1 2 6 7 7 1 26 8 16 2 21 428 2 9 16 3 11 65 

10 17 3 53 90 1 11 1 

Grand

Total 91 9 2 87 598 2 32 1 

BHS= bluehead sucker; CRP= common carp; FHM= fathead minnow; FMS= flannelmouhumpback chub; RBT= rainbow trout; RSH= red shiner; SPD= speckled dace; SUC= sucor FMS); UID= unidentified.

S a m p le L o c a tio n s

0 50 100 150 200 250

R IV E R M IL E

T ra m m e l n e t H o o p n e t - b a ite d S e in e
Table 5. Number of backwaters seined and fish species captured by reach during SW

REACH Backwaters BHS CRP FHM FMS HBC RBT RSH SP

1 02 14 1 7 3 4 1 21 9 3 4 4 4 21 7 1 8 1 5 06 9 1 23 33 5 7 4 1 10 7 3 10 8 7 9 1 102 179 1 119 9 6 13 1 30 62 1 184 

10 5 2 1 13 24 1511 4 10 7 41 

Grand

Total 57 24 6 230 322 11 11 13 51

BHS= bluehead sucker; CRP= common carp; FHM= fathead minnow; FMS= flannelmouth suchumpback chub; RBT= rainbow trout; RSH= red shiner; SPD= speckled dace; PKF=Plains killunidentified sucker (BHS or FMS).

Trammel net Hoop net - baited Seine
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

OCT 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada 

corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-35813

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO

U.S. District Court for Oregon, 

Portland

ORDER

A review of the docket reflects that appellant has not paid the docketing and 

filing fees for this appeal. Within 21 days from the date of this order, appellant 

shall: (1) file a motion with this court to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) pay $505 to 

the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal and provide proof 

of payment to this court; or (3) otherwise show cause why the appeal should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. The filing of a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis will automatically stay the briefing schedule under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-

11. Any motion to proceed in forma pauperis must include a financial declaration 

such as the attached Form 4. 

If appellant fails to comply with this order, this appeal will be dismissed 

automatically by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 114 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 2
FOR THE COURT:

Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk of Court

Cyntharee K. Powells

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 114 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 2842

_____________________________ C HRISTI L ONG , Appellant,

v.

R EEMPLOYMENT A SSISTANCE A PPEALS C OMMISSION , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

. Frank E. Brown
, Chairman

. September 30, 2021

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Christi Long, pro se
, Appellant.

Amanda L. Neff
, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2021096EN.01000101.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10151 — Linde/Sipchem/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 96/01)

On 15 March 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10151. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10151. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.2


                           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 of Blount International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Calvin E. Jenness, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

          (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
          report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Blount International, Inc. and will be retained by Blount
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


Date:  July 30, 2004


/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
---------------------
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Maldonado, Also Known as Sam Lopez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), both rendered October 23, 1979, convicting him of burglary in the first degree under indictment No. 48943, and robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 48944, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodolfo Taylor, Also Known as Ralph Taylor, Appellant.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered September 3, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) under indictment No. 1355/84, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, rendered *867October 31, 1985, as amended November 1, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, under indictment No. 1185/ 84, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment and the judgment as amended are affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that he was denied his right to counsel during the series of investigatory lineups in which he participated is without merit since the right to assistance of counsel at corporeal identifications "arises only after the initiation of formal prosecutorial proceedings” *(People v Hawkins,*55 NY2d 474, 487), and no such proceedings had been initiated against this defendant at the time of the lineups. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the witness Bailey’s selection of the defendant’s photograph from a photographic array two days before he picked the defendant out of the lineup did not taint the lineup identification since there is no argument that the photographic array was in any fashion unduly suggestive and we conclude that the lineup itself was not unduly suggestive. In addition, the trial testimony supports the defendant’s conviction of robbery in the first degree concerning the June 2, 1984 incident since there was ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that it appeared to the victims by sight and sound that they were being threatened with a firearm *(see, People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374; *People v Knowles,*79 AD2d 116). We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### HAROLD SHAW, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MAYOR AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued October 9 and 10, 1961

Decided October 23, 1961.

*Mr. Howard Stern*argued the cause for the appellant *(Messrs. Hofstra & Hofstra,*attorneys).

*Mr. Peter J. Van Norde*argued the cause for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino — 6.

*For reversal*— None.
#### In the Matter of JAMES E. CLARKIN, an attorney at law.

For the order: *Mr. William E. McGlynn.*

For the respondent: *Mr. James E. Clarkin, pro se.*

June 30, 1961.

Fame of respondent stricken from roll of attorneys at law. Opinion reported at 35 *N. J.*197.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CODY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Prosecution against Michael Cody.

Argued before O’BRIEN, FOLLETT, and PARKER, JJ.

J. D. Lindsay, for the People.

No opinion. Conviction. Judgment affirmed.
** **

**Exhibit 13.(a).1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofAlon Blue Square Israel Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to thebest of our knowledge:

 

 

 

 

 

By:  /s/ David Wiessman

David Wiessman

Chief Executive Officerand Chief Operating Decision Maker

 

                                                                                                                           

By:  /s/ Limor Ganot

Limor Ganot

Co-Chief Executive Officer

 

                                                                                                             

By:  /s/ Yehuda van der Walde

Yehuda van der Walde

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

Date: April 22, 2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7932
ROBERT ELTON STOTTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK DREW, Sheriff; CAPTAIN SCHUCTER, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-487-3) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Elton Stotts, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action for failure to either provide the Defendants' addresses or explain why he was unable to do so. Because a dismissal without prejudice is generally not appealable, we dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SCOTT WALDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

3:15-CV-01928-BR 

vs. 

CAROLYN COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

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

amount of$6,458.16 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiffs attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astruev. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiffs attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATEDthis 1cY dayof JU/vvt~ff'. ,2017. 

(l'1/'v1/L{~/?~ AnnaBrown · ..

U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01928-BR Document 29 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 1
**Basin Data****  % Median Precipitation      **  % Median SWE      **Reservoir Data****  Storage      **  Pool Elevation      **  Inflow      **  Release              Updated: June 03, 2024 14:10**  Gunnison Basin