alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUEBLO RESERVOIR NEAR PUEBLOLatitude: 38.271Longitude: -104.726Elevation: 4850

PUEBLO RESERVOIR NEAR PUEBLO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Glen Cove Site Page...



Glen Cove

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Saint Elmo Site Page...



Saint Elmo

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



Hayden Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

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



Fremont Pass

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



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

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



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to South Colony Site Page...



South Colony

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



Medano Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buckskin Joe Site Page...



Buckskin Joe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rough And Tumble Site Page...



Rough And Tumble
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DOMINIC GRACI and STEPHANIE GRACI
, Appellant s ,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A., as Trustee for AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
ASSETS TRUST 2006

- 4 MORTGAGE

- BACKED PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006

- 4 , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 2 302

[ February 16, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County ; Paige Hardy Gillman , Judge ; 502018CA008256

.

Jeff Barnes of W.J. Barnes, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants.

Kimberly S. Mello and Arda Goker of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS
, C ONNER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of Vilma Mottironi, Appellant, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered September 18, 1986 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to reinstate her to the position of Research Physician I.

Petitioner was a research physician employed by the Department of Health when, on September 10, 1985, she was notified that her position, Research Physician I (Immunology), was to be abolished for budgetary reasons effective October 1, 1985. Petitioner was advised of her right to "retreat” to the position of Research Physician III, but she declined. Petitioner instituted a grievance proceeding pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, alleging that the Department violated the agreement by "disciplining [her] by abolishing her position as retaliation for her exercising her legal rights”. It appears that in 1983 the Department had abolished petitioner’s Research Physician I position and she retreated to the position of Research Physician III. Petitioner’s lawsuit challenging such action was unsuccessful. Ultimately, in 1984, petitioner was restored to her previous title of Research Physician I. Petitioner took the position that the abolition of her position in October 1985 was in retaliation for her actions in challenging the 1983 abolition of her previous position.

Petitioner pursued the grievance through step two of the grievance procedure, after which the grievance was denied. The remaining steps of the grievance procedure were not pursued before the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding was commenced. In this proceeding, petitioner claims, as she did in her grievance, that her position was abolished in retaliation for the prior litigation. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and this appeal by petitioner ensued.

The proceeding was properly dismissed. It is petitioner’s position that the Department’s action was disciplinary in nature. To the extent that petitioner seeks relief pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, the provisions of that statute were *949made inapplicable by the collective bargaining agreement which substituted its own grievance procedure *(see, Matter of Apuzzo v County of Ulster,*98 AD2d 869, 871, *affd*62 NY2d 960). To the extent that the proceeding is an attempt to seek judicial review of a claimed violation of the collective bargaining agreement, it is premature inasmuch as petitioner has failed to exhaust her remedies under such agreement.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Page 8 of 20


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Bank One, National Association             Banker's Trust Company, Deutsche Bank
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126             100 Plaza One, Mailstop: JCY03-6450
Chicago, IL  60670                         Jersey City, NJ 07310
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration       Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Phone: (312) 407-0192                             Structured Finance
Fax: (312) 407-1708                        Phone: (201) 593-6776
                                           Fax: (201) 593-6459

Key Bank USA, National Association         MBIA Insurance Corporation
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor                113 King Street
Cleveland, OH 44114                        Armonk, New York 10504
ATTN: Senior Vice President                ATTN: Data Administration
Key Education Resources                    Phone: (914) 765-3772
Phone: (216) 828-9342                      Fax: (914) 765-3810
Fax: (216) 828-9301


Pursuant to Section 4.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement among Key Bank USA,
National Association, as Seller, Master Servicer and Administrator, KeyCorp
Student Loan Trust 2000-A, and Bank One, National Association, as Eligible
Lender Trustee, dated as of June 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned
hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer from
January 1, 2001 December 31, 2001, and of its performance under the Agreement
has been made, and (ii) to the best of our knowledge, based on our review, the
Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout
such period.


                                           Key Bank USA, National Association,
                                           as Master Servicer

                                           by:    /S/ DARLENE H. DIMITRIJEVS
                                               ---------------------------------
Date: March 4, 2002                        Name:  Darlene H. Dimitrijevs, CPA
                                           Title: Senior Vice President


                                           by:    /S/ DEBRA S. FRONIUS
                                               ---------------------------------
                                           Name:  Debra S. Fronius
                                           Title: Vice President
#### Oakley v. Purcell.

Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. J. W. Foster.

Lee & Lee and Espy & Farmer, for appellant.

*654W. W. Sanders, for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment in this ease is affirmed for want of assignment of error.
#### In the Matter of Alonzo M., Respondent, v New York City Department of Probation et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to, *inter alia,*compel the New York City Department of Probation to redact from its investigation report references to the petitioner’s prior arrests which were terminated in his favor, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated September 15, 1986, which granted the petition to the extent of ordering it to redact from its investigation report the notations regarding the dates of arrest, docket numbers, and dispositions of the petitioner’s favorably terminated cases.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly directed the New York City Department of Probation to redact from its investigation report all references to those cases which have been terminated in petitioner’s favor and thus sealed under Family Court Act § 375.1 (1), as that section specifically mandates that all such sealed records "not [be] made available to any person or public or private agency”. The intent of the sealing provision, "which is *632to protect the rights of the individual from the adverse consequences of allegations that do not result in a conviction” *(Matter of David H.,*124 Misc 2d 190, 192) would be vitiated if the Department of Probation were permitted to refer to its official records pertaining to such prior sealed cases in a subsequent investigation and report. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5713 

To direct the Administrator of General Services to extend to private property 

owners and managers in the City of Fredericksburg and the counties 

of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania, and Stafford in Virginia the 

same preferences in negotiating for the leasing of space for the use 

of the Federal government that are given to private property owners 

and managers in jurisdictions in the National Capital region. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2010 

Mr. WITTMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of General Services to extend 

to private property owners and managers in the City 

of Fredericksburg and the counties of Caroline, King 

George, Spotsylvania, and Stafford in Virginia the same 

preferences in negotiating for the leasing of space for 

the use of the Federal government that are given to 

private property owners and managers in jurisdictions 

in the National Capital region. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5713 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GSA NATIONAL CAPITAL RE2 GION PREFERENCES FOR LEASING SPACE 

3 FOR FEDERAL USE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY 

4 OWNERS AND MANAGERS IN CERTAIN JURIS5 DICTIONS IN VIRGINIA. 

6 The Administrator of General Services shall extend 

7 to private property owners and managers in the City of 

8 Fredericksburg and the counties of Caroline, King George, 

9 Spotsylvania, and Stafford in Virginia the same pref10 erences in negotiating for the leasing of space for the use 

11 of the Federal government that are given to private prop12 erty owners and managers in jurisdictions in the National 

13 Capital region (as defined in section 8702(3) of title 40, 

14 United States Code). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2182

G. MARK SEALS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM, a Nebraska Corporation; ILLINOIS STUDENT ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, an Illinois Corporation; MAXIMUS COLLECTION CENTER, a Michigan Corporation; AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a Pennsylvania Corporation; SALLIE MAE SERVICING CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation; NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-101-5) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 22, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Mark Seals, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Leftridge Thomas, KAY, CASTO & CHANEY, Charleston, West Virginia; David M. Thomas, KAY, CASTO & CHANEY, Morgantown, West Virginia; Jacon Swartly, LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; William Scott Adams,- 2 - MACCORKLE, LAVENDER, CASEY & SWEENEY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: G. Mark Seals appeals the dismissal of his civil action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (2000), and the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act (“WVCCPA”), W. Va. Code § 46A-2-125 (1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinions and orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Seals v. National Student Loan Program , No. CA-02-101-5 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 8, 2003; Aug. 16, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Johnson, Appellant.

Memorandum: The court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendants. Whether to grant a motion to sever is in the court’s discretion (CPL 200.40; *People v Bornholdt,*33 NY2d 75, 87, *cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York,*416 US 905) and the court is not required to sever where the motion is untimely or where the possibility of a codefendant testifying in a manner antagonistic to the defendant is colorable or speculative *(see, People v Bornholdt, supra).*Defendant did not move to sever on the ground urged on appeal, viz., that his codefendant’s testimony might be antithetical to his position, until the close of the People’s case. Even then defendant did not offer proof as to what the testimony would be, but offered merely a conclusory allegation that it would be inimical to his position. There was thus no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of defendant’s untimely and unsupported motion to sever. Further, we conclude that there was no prejudice as a result of the joint trial. The testimony of the codefendant was obviously not believed *1064by the jury inasmuch as the jury convicted all of the codefendants. The evidence apart from the codefendant’s testimony was overwhelming and we perceive no "injustice or impairment of substantial rights unseen at the beginning” *(People v Fisher,*249 NY 419, 427).

Nor was it error for the court to deny defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon the unsolicited comments from a codefendant that defendant was a "runner” who had a "criminal history”. The court sustained objections to those comments and gave curative instructions directing the jury to disregard the comments.

Finally, the prosecutor’s remarks on summation, although artless and inappropriate, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — rape, first degree, and other offenses.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2458 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 5351 Lapalco Boulevard in Marrero, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Lionel R. Collins, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

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

•HR 2458 EH

1 SECTION 1. LIONEL R. COLLINS, SR. POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 5351 Lapalco Boulevard in 

5 Marrero, Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Lionel R. Collins, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lionel R. Collins, Sr. 

11 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 1, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2458 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostSr. Post Office Building’’. Marrero, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Lionel R. Collins, al Service located at 5351 Lapalco Boulevard in
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40033

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Miguel Ramirez-Rodriguez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CR-27-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Miguel 

Ramirez-Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez-Rodriguez has filed a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40033 Document: 00515992711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
No. 21-40033

2

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Ramirez-Rodriguez’s response. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. RamirezRodriguez’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See 

United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 21-40033 Document: 00515992711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
Denied and Opinion Issued January 27, 2022

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-01111-CV

IN RE CAMILIA JONES, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-07710

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Before the Court are relator’s January 10, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus 

and motion for emergency stay and real party’s January 14, 2022 response and 

motion to expedite.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In 

re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

Based on our review of the petition, record, and response, we conclude relator has 

failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We deny relator’s motion 

for emergency stay and real party’s motion to expedite as moot. 
–2–

21111f.p05

/Cory L. Carlyle//

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 11, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00107-CV
ESTATE OF DOLORES R. BURDINE
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-18-01291-1

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Stating she no longer wishes to pursue th e appeal, appellant has filed a notice

of nonsuit and motion to dismiss. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the
motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

230107F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ESTATE OF DOLORES R. BURDINE

No. 05-23-00107-CV On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-18-01291- 1. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellees Ronald W. Sa lmon, Walter Bill Joe Vandever, and Sherry J. Burdine recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Patricia J. Petrie.

Judgment entered April 11, 2023
#### Allen L. WISDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTERVILLE FIRE DISTRICT, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-35178.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Allen L. Wisdom, Idaho City, ID, pro se.

J. Robert Alexander, Benoit, Alexander, Harwood & High, LLP, Twin Falls, ID, Vicky J. Elkin, Stephen J. Gledhill, Esquire, Trout Jones Gledhill Fuhrman, P.A., Jon T. Simmons, Ellsworth, Kallas, Talboy & DeFraneo, P.L.L.C., Michael Wallace Moore, Moore Baskin and Elia LLP, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, 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 **

Allen L. Wisdom appeals pro se from the district court’s order awarding costs and attorney’s fees after the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Centerville Fire District, Inc. and ten others. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1,*474 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees and costs to defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, after concluding that Wisdom’s civil rights claims were frivolous. *See Franceschi v. Schwartz,*57 F.3d 828, 832 (9th Cir.1995). Contrary to Wisdom’s contentions, defendants were “prevailing parties” after summary judgment was granted in their favor. *See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,*532 U.S. 598, 605, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (a party is a *692“prevailing party” when, inter alia, they obtain “judgment on the merits”). Moreover, the record indicates that the district court considered Wisdom’s pro se status prior to awarding fees and costs.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding taxable costs to defendants. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1); Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 54.1.

Wisdom’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

We do not address any requests for attorney’s fees for this appeal, as such requests must be made by separate motion. *See*9th Cir. R. 39-1.6.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
exv10w2wb






Exhibit 10.2(b)



June 9, 2009




Willowbridge Associates Inc.

101 Morgan Lane — Suite 180

Plainsboro, N.J. 08536




Attention: Mr. Steve R. Crane




     Re: Management Agreement Renewals


Dear Mr. Crane:



We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreements through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio LP
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion Futures Fund (Cayman) Ltd.




Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.



Very truly yours,



CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Jennifer Magro
 	 
	 	Jennifer Magro 	 
	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director 	 
	 



WILLOWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES INC.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Steven R. Crane
 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Print Name:

	 	Steven R. Crane	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 




JM/sr