alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GREEN RIVER NEAR GREENDALE, UTLatitude: 40.908Longitude: -109.422Elevation: 5619

GREEN RIVER NEAR GREENDALE, UT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Spirit Lk Site Page...



Spirit Lk

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Pocket Creek Site Page...



Pocket Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Larsen Creek Site Page...



Larsen Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Blacks Fork Jct Site Page...



Blacks Fork Jct

Courtesy NRCS - Go to EF Blacks Fork GS Site Page...



EF Blacks Fork GS

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buck Pasture Site Page...



Buck Pasture

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Henrys Fork Site Page...



Henrys Fork

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Big Sandy Opening Site Page...



Big Sandy Opening

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Blind Bull Sum Site Page...



Blind Bull Sum

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chepeta Site Page...



Chepeta

Courtesy NRCS - Go to East Rim Divide Site Page...



East Rim Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elkhart Park G.S. Site Page...



Elkhart Park G.S.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gros Ventre Summit Site Page...



Gros Ventre Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hams Fork Site Page...



Hams Fork

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lakefork Basin Site Page...



Lakefork Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hewinta Site Page...



Hewinta

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hickerson Park Site Page...



Hickerson Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hole-in-Rock Site Page...



Hole-in-Rock

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Indian Creek Site Page...



Indian Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kelley R.S. Site Page...



Kelley R.S.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kendall R.S. Site Page...



Kendall R.S.

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



Kings Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Loomis Park Site Page...



Loomis Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to New Fork Lake Site Page...



New Fork Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Snider Basin Site Page...



Snider Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Spring Creek Divide Site Page...



Spring Creek Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Steel Creek Park Site Page...



Steel Creek Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Triple Peak Site Page...



Triple Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gunsight Pass Site Page...



Gunsight Pass
#### HARRISON, Appellant, v. NUGENT et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 30, 1896.)

Action by Edward H. Harrison, as receiver, etc., against Terence Nugent and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# C_2021046EN.01000901.xml

| 9.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10075 - Nexi/Nets Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 46/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Nexi S.p.A. (‘Nexi’, Italy), jointly controlled by private equity firms Advent International and Bain Capital, |
| --- | --- |

—

Nexi S.p.A. (‘Nexi’, Italy), jointly controlled by private equity firms Advent International and Bain Capital,

| — | The Nets Group, including Nets A/S (‘Nets’, Denmark), and Concardis Payment Group (‘Concardis’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Nets Group, including Nets A/S (‘Nets’, Denmark), and Concardis Payment Group (‘Concardis’, Germany).

Nexi acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the Nets Group.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Nexi provides payment services for merchants, cardholders and banks, such as card issuing and merchant acquiring services, provision of POS terminals and related services, smart payment cards services, automated cash handling products’ services, clearing services for payments and digital corporate services. |
| --- | --- |

—

Nexi provides payment services for merchants, cardholders and banks, such as card issuing and merchant acquiring services, provision of POS terminals and related services, smart payment cards services, automated cash handling products’ services, clearing services for payments and digital corporate services.

| — | The Nets Group provides, among other product and services, merchant acquiring services, POS terminals and enabled payment gateways, card processing services, and smart payment cards services. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Nets Group provides, among other product and services, merchant acquiring services, POS terminals and enabled payment gateways, card processing services, and smart payment cards services.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10075 - Nexi/Nets Group

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Fernandez, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We find no merit to any of the claims raised by defendant on this appeal. The suppression court properly relied upon *People v Beam*(57 NY2d 241) in concluding that defendant’s written statement would be admissible in evidence *(see, People v Williams,*91 AD2d 1173). Moreover, the People never used the written statement as part of their direct case. The statement was merely marked for identification during cross-examination of defendant. Also, we conclude that the limitation imposed on both counsel during the voir dire of prospective jurors did not violate defendant’s due process rights. The trial court necessarily has broad discretion to control and restrict the scope of the voir dire examination *(see, People v Boulware,*29 NY2d 135, *cert denied*405 US 995; *People v Corbett,*68 AD2d 772, *affd*52 NY2d 714; *People v Lucks,*83 AD2d 516). It is clear from the record that defense counsel was accorded a fair opportunity to question prospective jurors. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — assault, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
EXHIBIT
13.1




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 Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of RADCOM Ltd. (the “Company”)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Ripstein, Chief
Executive 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:




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




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




Date:
November 2, 2010




/s/ David RipsteinDavid
      RipsteinChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael O’Hara, Appellant.

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Defendant was found guilty of visiting a savage beating upon his ex-wife, with whom he was then living. During the course of this unprovoked assault, he relentlessly pounded his former wife’s head against the wall, struck her about the face, hit her with a chair, and kicked her with his leather, round-toed, mid-calf boots. Her painful and extensive physical injuries included: two black eyes, a broken tooth, foot-long bruises on her legs, a lacerated lip which required suturing and a damaged hand which swelled to twice its normal size.

It is defendant’s contention that his conviction of assault in the second degree should be reversed, and to that extent the indictment should be dismissed. His appeal raises two issues: did the boots with which defendant repeatedly kicked his victim constitute a "dangerous instrument” and does the evidence demonstrate, as the jury must necessarily have found *896in deciding defendant was guilty of second degree assault, that the kicking caused her physical injury.

It is clear that boots can become dangerous instruments within the reach of Penal Law § 10.00 (13). As noted in *People v Rumaner*(45 AD2d 290), *'[a]ny*instrument * * * which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is capable of causing death or other serious physical injury is a dangerous instrument within the meaning of the statute” *(id.,*p 292 [emphasis in original]). Whether a particular instrument, article or substance is to be considered dangerous is resolved by employing a "use-oriented approach” *(People v Carter,*53 NY2d 113, 116). That approach justifies the jury’s conclusion that the boots, wielded in in the fashion they were here, were readily capable of causing serious physical injury and, thus, represented a "dangerous instrument”.

The assertion that, as a matter of law, the evidence does not bear out a finding that the kicking administered caused the victim to suffer "physical injury” as that term is comprehended in the Penal Law is also unconvincing. Penal Law § 10.00 (9) defines "physical injury” as the "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain”. Testimony elicited at trial from the victim, who was a registered nurse, her friend, also a nurse, and two physicians provide a basis for concluding, *inter alia,*that the victim suffered painful bruising of the abdomen, back, thighs and hips due to being kicked, that though the precise cause was not established, she passed blood in her urine as a result of the mauling, and that she was required to receive emergency treatment and was rendered incapable of returning to work, all because of the battering received, of which the kicking was an integral part. That defendant inflicted physical injury with his boots obviously has ample support in the record.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIXTH MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,062,313
<SECURITIES>                                    91,116
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,920,795
<PP&E>                                       3,344,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,210,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,360,915
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    275,774
<COMMON>                                       907,932
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,210,720
<SALES>                                        254,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,860
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,889,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             278,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,913,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,913,070)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
#### Esther Kleiner et al., Appellants, v Town of Babylon, Defendant, and Oak Beach Inn, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated July 23, 1986, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Oak Beach Inn for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

*613Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

The plaintiff Esther Kleiner sustained serious injuries when her foot became caught in a crack in a cement walkway causing her to fall down four steps onto a cement landing leased by the defendant Oak Beach Inn. A search of the record indicates that there are triable issues of fact with respect to the existence of a duty running from the respondent to the plaintiffs including whether the respondent had the right under the lease and perforce, the control to make the walkway safe by repairing the cracked cement, whether or not the respondent was effectively precluded from exercising the control necessary to comply with the lease provision requiring it to "maintain the leased premises in a safe * * * condition”, and whether the alterations and repairs by respondent to the walkway were carried out in a reasonable manner *(see, Putnam, v Stout,*38 NY2d 607, 616).

Accordingly, the cross motion of the defendant Oak Beach Inn for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it should be denied. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Abraham XX., Deceased. Kathleen XX., as Administrator of the Estate of Abraham XX., Deceased, Appellant; State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted March 12, 2007;

decided May 3, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Graffeo taking no part.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51166-51167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19759]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 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

[[Page 51167]]

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: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; 
Clinical Trials Review Study Section.
    Date: October 28-29, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Keary A Cope, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 
209-A, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, (301) 827-7912, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c3f332c39373d1c313d353072323534723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80e3eff0e5ebe1c0ede1e9ecaeeee9e8aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19759 Filed 9-13-21; 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>
#### GOODSELL, Respondent, v. VEEDER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Action by Fred. R. Goodsell, an infant, by William R. Goodsell, his guardian, against Melvin Veeder.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
RIDGWAY RESERVOIRLatitude: 38.236Longitude: -107.759Elevation: 6861

RIDGWAY RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Idarado Site Page...



Idarado

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mineral Creek Site Page...



Mineral Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Mountain Pass Site Page...



Red Mountain Pass
#### Erick Noe ALEMAN-CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72234.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Erick Noe Aleman-Cabera, Escondido, CA, pro se.

Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*683Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Erick Noe Aleman-Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Aleman-Cabrera failed to show his alleged persecutors threatened him on account of a protected ground. His fear of future persecution based on an actual or imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of the protected ground of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion. *Ramos Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009); *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008); *see Ochave v. INS,*254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”)

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on the Board’s finding that Aleman-Cabrera did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. *See Arteaga v. Mukasey,*511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 5 0 65 4 Summary Calendar

JON HARLANDALE

- GA DOE

,

P laintiff−Appellant,

v ersus

HARLANDALE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

,
Defendant−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 5:18

- CV

- 889

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The plaintiff sued for relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 11, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50654 Document: 00515341197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2020N o. 19

- 5 0 65 4

2 of 1973 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court properly dismissed for failure

to exhaust for not invoking the IDEA administrative review process. The court

noted that the “exhau stion requirement applies even if relief is sought under
other federal laws” such as § 1983. The defendant school district helpfully
points out that just a few months after the district court entered judgment, t h i s court reiterated this exhaustion require ment in McMillen v. New Caney Inde

pen dent School District , 939 F.3d 640, 645−47 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert.
filed (Jan. 30, 2020) (No. 19

- 972).

AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50654 Document: 00515341197 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2020
# C_2021489EN.01000101.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 489/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 489/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10284 – KPS / CROWN EUROPEAN TINPLATE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 489/01)

On 11 August 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10284. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10284. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---