alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aspinall Operations Meet

January 19, 2017
OPERATIONS

PAST AND PRESENT
0

500

1000150020002500300035004000

9/3 9/18 10/3 10/18 11/2 11/17 12/2 12/17 1/1 1/16

Average Daily Flow (cfs)

September 2016 - January 2017

BM Inflow Crystal Release Black Canyon BM Conte
0

500

1000150020002500

Flow (cfs)

Gunnison River Flows

Crystal Dam Gunnison R - Black Canyon North Fork @ Confluence Gunnison 

Baseflow Target

SNOW CONDITIONS






Butte 17 8 12 # 2

Schofield 17 9 13 # 2Porphyry 17 6 12 # 2Slumgullion 22 10 17 # 2 Park Cone 17 8 10 # 1

Days to Receive a Month’s Worth of S

Dec Jan Jan Rank

Blue Mesa Inflo

2008 = 1,000,000 2011 = 892,000 2014 = 849,000 
50%

60%70%80%90%

100%110%120%130%140%150%

Oct-1 Nov-1 Dec-1 Jan-1 Feb-1 Mar-1 Apr-1 

Upper Gunnison Basin SWE % of Average Daily

(Scaled to % of Avg Annual Peak)

Butte Schofield Porphyry Slumgullion Par
RUNOFF FORECASTS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 

Percent of 1981-2010 Average

Forecasted April-July Runoff

As of January 1st

Gunnison River - near Grand Jct 1,250,000

Ridgway Reservoir Inflow 88,000

North Fork Gunnison River - near Somerset 255,000

Paonia Reservoir Inflow (Mar-Jun) 82,000

Lake Fork Gunnison River - at Gateview 108,000

Tomichi Creek - at Gunnison 66,000

Blue Mesa Reservoir Inflow 575,000

Gunnison River - near Gunnison 310,000

East River - at Almont 158,000

Taylor Park Reservoir Inflow 81,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 

Percent of 1981-2010 Average

Forecasted April-July Runoff

As of January 15th

Gunnison River - near Grand Jct 1,820,000

Ridgway Reservoir Inflow 110,000

North Fork Gunnison River - near Somerset 318,000

Paonia Reservoir Inflow (Mar-Jun) 109,000

Lake Fork Gunnison River - at Gateview 147,000

Tomichi Creek - at Gunnison 107,000

Blue Mesa Reservoir Inflow 928,000

Gunnison River - near Gunnison 511,000

East River - at Almont 240,000

Taylor Park Reservoir Inflow 126,000
CBRFC Hydrologic Model – Daily Forecast Evolution Plo
SPRING TARGETS AN

FUTURE OPERATIONS
Year Type

Blue Mesa 

Forecasted 

Desired Peak at 

Whitewater

Duration of Half Bank 

(8,070 cfs)

Duration o

(up to 1

April-July Inflow

Af cfs Days D

DRY < 381,000 900 0 

MOD DRY 381,000 to 516,000 2,600 to 8,070 0 

AVG DRY 516,001 to 709,000 8,070 10 

AVG WET 709,001 to 831,000 8,070 to 14,350 20 

MOD WET 831,001 to 1,123,000 14,350 40 

WET >1,123,000 14,350 60 

Spring Peak & Duration TargetsBased on Hydrologic Year Type

Mid-Jan915,000
6501 cfs

Jan 15 Forecast

915 KAF Shoulde

May 1 – 

904 

Baseflow Targets
100

200300400500600700800

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au

1000 Acre-feet

Blue Mesa Content

End of Month

Jan 1 Forecast = 575 Kaf Jan 15 Forecast = 915 Kaf

Current = 591 Kaf
0

500

1000150020002500300035004000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au

Flow (cfs)

Gunnison River - Black Canyon

Monthly Average Flow

Jan 15 Forecast = 915 Kaf
[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-9131

D. C. Docket No. 1:92-CV-2137-ODE
ROBERT K. JOINER and KAREN P. JOINER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, A New York Corporation; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, A Pennsylvania Corpor ation; MONSANTO COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District Georgia (February 9, 1998) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judge s, and SMITH*, Senior Circuit Judge.

__________________________ *Honorable Edward S. Smith, Senior U.S. Circ uit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM:2 On December 15, 1997, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the panel in this case reversing the district court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s expert testimony and grant of summary judgment. General Electric Co. v. Joiner , 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997). However, the Supreme Court noted that genuine issues of material fact still pr eclude summary judgment in this case. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that: Whether Joiner was exposed to furans and di oxins, and whether if there was such exposure, the opinions of Joiner’s experts would then be admissible, remain open questions. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Cour t of Appeals and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Id. at 519. Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the distri ct court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision and order.
# C_2021418EN.01000201.xml

| 15.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10427 – KKR/Telefónica/InfraCo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 418/02)

On 5 October 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 32021M10427. 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 32021M10427. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021330EN.01000601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/6 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10403 — SHV/ACTA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 330/05)

1.

On 9 August 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021330EN.01000601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | SHV Holdings N.V. (‘SHV’, Netherlands) |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | ACTA\* Holding B.V. (‘ACTA’, Netherlands) |

SHV acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of ACTA.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for SHV: investment company active globally in a wide range of industries, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for ACTA: the parent holding company of Kiwa NV, an international quality accreditation organization that specializes in testing, inspection and certification 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.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021330EN.01000601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

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

M.10403 — SHV/ACTA

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 |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021330EN.01000601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021330EN.01000601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### LITTLE, Respondent, v. KINGSTON CITY R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 29, 1896.)

Action by Thomas Little against the Kingston City Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### LAUER, Appellant, v. LAUER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 13, 1896.)

Action by Fred Lauer against Jacob Lauer.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs.
#### Chuck Rothberg et al., Appellants, v William Donohoe, Respondent.

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages resulting from the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff, who was allegedly bitten by the defendant’s dog.

We agree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the judgment *798in favor of the defendant must be reversed because of the trial court’s instructions to the jury. Specifically, in its supplemental charge concerning the issue of the vicious propensity of the dog, the trial court stated: "Dogs bite for various reasons, some of which may be for vicious reasons and some might be for reasons of self defense or reasons which are known only to the dog, like being annoyed by persons or being vexed by people. Or dogs may bite not out of viciousness, but out of a sense of protecting a master”. However, a review of the record fails to reveal any evidence to support these theories as to why the dog may have bitten the infant plaintiff. Thus, the trial court improperly permitted the jury to consider these reasons for the dog’s conduct and the plaintiffs’ objection with respect to this part of the charge should have been sustained. As noted by the Court of Appeals, "[t]he trial court’s instructions 'should state the law as applicable to the particular facts in issue in the case at bar, which the evidence in the case tends to prove; mere abstract propositions of law applicable to any case, or mere statements of law in general terms, even though correct, should not be given unless they are made applicable to the issues in the case at bar’ ” *(Green v Downs,*27 NY2d 205, 208, quoting from 53 Am Jur, Trial, § 573). The resultant prejudice which arose by the trial court’s instructions was not dissipated by its statement that one of the examples, namely, that a dog bites to protect its master, was unsupported by the evidence.

Accordingly, a new trial is warranted.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the other issues raised on appeal. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Admission to the Bar of the Court

Rule 83.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims governs the admission requirements and procedures for attorneys interested in becoming members of the bar of this court. Please see the links below for more information or contact the Clerk’s Office at (202) 357-6406 with any questions concerning the bar admission process or other admission-related matters. 

**Bar Admission and Account Registration**
                                    - Requesting Attorney Admissions and/or E-Filing Registration
                                    - Rule 83.1  ("Attorneys")
                                    - Monthly Attorney Admissions Proceedings
                                    - Form for Admission via Motion in Open Court
                                    - Form for Admission by Verified Application (Form 1)
                                    - Fee Schedule

**Attorney Services**
                                    - Requesting a Certificate of Good Standing
                                    - Requesting a Duplicate Certificate of Admission

**Account Maintenance**
                                    - Updating Attorney Account Information
                                    - PACER Account Support

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATE,S COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

OWEN ERIC ALLAIN.

Docket Number 2023-0067

CG fnforcement Activity Number 7632756

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: Ju ne 7 .2023

ble J. Jorda Administrative Law J

Appearances:

LT. LAWRENCE SCHALLES

USCG Sector Charleston

For the Coast Guard

OWEN ERIC ALLAIN, Pra se

For the Respondent

vs.

Respondent.
CONSENT O ER APPRO LEMENT AGREEMENT

On Feburary 17,2023, the parties in this case submitted an Amended Motion for

Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of

the case under 33 C.F.R. S 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. Q 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED. the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated June 7. 2023.

Seattle. Washington

Ceorge . Jordan

Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

.24_
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33


                        ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

The Employment Agreement between The viaLink Company ("viaLink") and Lewis B.
Kilbourne dated the 1st day of October, 1998 is amended as follows:

    1.   Effective as of the 1st day of October, 2000, the annualized salary set
         forth in Section 4.1 of said Employment Agreement shall be increased to
         Three Hundred thousand dollars ($310,000).

    2.   Except as amended herein, no further changes are made to the
         Employment Agreement and the same remains in full force and effect.


The viaLink Company                                 Lewis B. Kilbourne



By: /s/ SUE A. HALE                                 /s/ LEWIS B. KILBOURNE
   ----------------                                 ----------------------
   Sue A. Hale

Its: Chair of the Compensation Committee            Lewis B. Kilbourne




Date:  SEPT. 25, 2000                               Date:  SEPT. 25, 2000
     ----------------                                    -----------------
# C_2021418EN.01000401.xml

| 15.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/4

---

NOTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK WITHDRAWING THE NOTICE ON THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR BREACHES OF THE OBLIGATION TO HOLD MINIMUM RESERVES

(2021/C 418/04)

Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2531/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the application of minimum reserves by the European Central Bank states that, inter alia, where an institution fails to hold all or part of the minimum reserves imposed in accordance with that Regulation and regulations or decisions of the European Central Bank (ECB) associated therewith, sanctions may be imposed by the ECB. Certain elements of the sanctions policy were published in Notice of the European Central Bank on the imposition of sanctions for breaches of the obligation to hold minimum reserves (1). Those elements have been transferred to Decision (EU) 2021/1815 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2021/45) (2).

Notice (2000/C 39/04) is hereby withdrawn with effect from 3 November 2021.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2000, p. 3.

(2)  Decision (EU) 2021/1815 of the European Central Bank of 7 October 2021 on the methodology applied for the calculation of sanctions for non-compliance with the requirement to hold minimum reserves and related minimum reserve requirements (ECB/2021/45) (OJ L 367 of 15.10.2021, p. 4).

---
# C_2021473EN.01001601.xml

| 24.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 473/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 473/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10374 – BAIN CAPITAL / HITACHI METALS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 473/02)

On 6 October 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 32021M10374. 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 32021M10374. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
# C_2021244EN.01001501.xml

| 22.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/15

---

Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/996 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus

(2021/C 244/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/996 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus.

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons should be included on the list or persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 765/2006. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 30 November 2021, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Article 8a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, of the list of designated persons and entities.

---

(1)  OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 70.

(3)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 1.

---
#### Jill Leighty, Respondent, v Stanley Brunn et al., Doing Business as Doctor’s Sunnyside Hospital, Appellants.

—In a medical malpractice action, the defendants separately appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Jiudice, J.), dated June 26, 1985, which is in favor of the plaintiff, and against them, upon a jury verdict, in the principal amount of $525,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial is granted, with one bill of costs to the defendants, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, to abide the event.

The trial court erred in submitting to the jurors a verdict sheet which allowed them to compensate the plaintiff separately for injuries arising under each of her theories of liability, i.e., medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. It *649is beyond cavil that a plaintiff is entitled to only one recovery with respect to an identical damage claim *(see, Simon v Royal Business Funds Corp.,*34 AD2d 758, *affd*29 NY2d 692; *Murray v Long Is. R. R. Co.,*35 AD2d 579, *affd*28 NY2d 849; *Hotel Utica v Armstrong,*62 AD2d 1147). The jury’s apportionment of fault on the theory of medical malpractice at 75% on the part of the defendant Stanley Brunn and 25% on the part of the defendant Daniel P. Schultz, was inconsistent with its apportionment of fault on the theory of lack of informed consent at 70% on the part of the defendant Brunn and 30% on the part of the defendant Schultz, since there was no evidence that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff by virtue of the respective breaches of duty were readily distinguishable.

Moreover, we view the award of $525,000 as excessive under the circumstances and consider the inflammatory nature of the plaintiff’s counsel’s summation to have been a contributory factor thereto *(see, Taormina v Goodman,*63 AD2d 1018).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.