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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1742 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1742

  To make innovative technology loan guarantee support available for 
                     battery storage technologies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2019

  Mr. Takano (for himself and Mr. Collins of New York) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
   Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make innovative technology loan guarantee support available for 
                     battery storage technologies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Battery Storage Innovation Act''.

SEC. 2. BATTERY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES.

    Section 1703(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16513(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) Battery storage technologies for residential, 
        industrial, or transportation applications.''.
                                 <all>
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 8 – Assessing America’s Cropland      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, Dave Johnson with NASS discusses how Landsat can identify different crops, providing a valuable economic tool for agriculture.

View Media Details

View

View Media Details

**Download and Transcript Access**

**Summary**: Every year, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) uses data from satellites like Landsat to estimate crop types and crop yields in the United States. The result is the Cropland Data Layer (CDL), which offers an annual look at more than 100 crop categories across the country. 

**Guest**: Dave Johnson, USDA Senior Geographer with NASS

**Host**: Steve Young

**Producer**: Brian Hauge

**Release date**: Nov. 6, 2019

**More on satellite-based cropland data**: 
                            - National Agriculture Statistics Service
                            - Cropland Data Layer
                            - Cropscape Viewer

 

### Contacts
Exhibit
10.30


 


	
  

  	
  Albert E. Smith 

  Vice Chairman

  



 


 


November 14, 2005


 


Sam
W. Box


President


Tetra
Tech, Inc.


3475
E. Foothill Boulevard


Pasadena,
California 91107


 


Dear
Sam:


 


In recognition of your on-going contribution to Tetra Tech and your
invaluable management expertise in the leadership of the Company, the Board and
executive management believe it is critical that your services to the Company
continue for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Company is providing you
with the following benefits:


 


•                  Compensation. Your base compensation will increase from
$400,000 to $425,000 annually, effective immediately. Your next base salary
compensation review is scheduled for December 2006.


 


•                  Equity Award. You will receive an equity award not to
exceed 20,000 shares of restricted stock to retain your service for a minimum
two-year period. As you know, awards of restricted stock will be made under the
Company’s 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, as approved by the Board of Directors
today. However, such Plan is subject to stockholder approval at the Annual
Meeting of Stockholders scheduled for March 6, 2005 and no awards under
the Plan will be made until such approval is obtained. This award does not
preclude granting of options as part of the ‘06 option grant program.


 


Please indicate your agreement with and acceptance of the terms of this
letter by signing a copy in the space provided below and returning it to me at
your earliest convenience.


 


3475 East Foothill
Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91107


Tel 626.470.2470
Fax 626.470.2670


 





















 


Thank you again for your continuing contribution to Tetra Tech’s growth
and success. 


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Albert E. Smith

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Albert E. Smith

  	
   

  
	
  Vice Chairman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Sam W. Box

  	
   

  	
  12/6/05

  	
   

  
	
  Sam
  W. Box

  	
  Date

  



 


2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Doran Evans, Appellant.

Application by the defendant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this court dated September 8, 1986 [123 AD2d 328], affirming an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered January 25, 1985, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied, without costs or disbursements. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Order filed February 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

___________

NO. 01-14-00557-CR

____________

JORDAN LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 81st District Court

Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-11-205-CRW

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State’s Exhibit Nos. 5, 8-

9, and 13-28.
The exhibit clerk of the 81st District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk 

of this court the original of State’s Exhibit Nos. 5, 8-9, and 13-28, on or before 

March 4, 2015. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep 

safe these original exhibits; to deliver them to the justices of this court for their 

inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s 

Exhibit Nos. 5, 8-9, and 13-28, to the clerk of the 81st District Court.

PER CURIAM
Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 22 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 22 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 22 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 27, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00618-CR

DENNIS RAY WILBORN, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 230th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1260178 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant Dennis Ray wilborn appeals his conviction for burglary of a 

habitation. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation 

of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 

See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 

days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. 

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 29 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 29 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 29 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 41 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 41 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 47-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 21 of 21
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-653

_____________________________

BRENDA M. BUSH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

April 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders∗ appeal, we affirm Brenda M. Bush’s 

convictions and sentences. But we remand with instructions that 

the trial court enter a written order finding Bush competent to 

proceed, nunc pro tunc to the date the trial court made its oral 

determination of competency. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b) (“If the 

court finds the defendant competent to proceed, the court shall 

enter its order so finding and shall proceed.”); Mullens v. State, 197 

So. 3d 16, 37-38 (Fla. 2016). 

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

 ∗ Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
2

ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael J. Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal 

Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 11-2 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 11-2 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 11-2 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,414

EX PARTE FRANK ALEXANDER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2007CR10812-W2 IN THE 186 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to forty-four years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that he was denied the right to appeal his conviction because trial counsel

was allowed to withdraw from the representation without being replaced by appointed appellate

counsel, despite Applicant’s expressed desire to appeal, and trial counsel’s request that the trial court

appoint counsel to represent Applicant on appeal. 
2

The trial court has determined that Applicant was denied the opportunity to appeal his

conviction, and recommends that Applicant be granted an out-of-time appeal in the interest of

fairness. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal

of the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 2007CR10812 from the 186th Judicial District Court of

Bexar County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of

appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall

be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court

issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps

to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court

issues.

Delivered: September 15, 2010

Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11666]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-272-030]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate

May 3, 2001.

    Take notice that on April 30, 2001, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, 
proposed to become effective on May 1, 2001:

Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 66
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 66A

    Northern states that the above sheets are being filed to implement 
negotiated rate transactions with Great River Energy and WPS Energy 
Services, Inc. in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on 
Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-service Ratemaking for Natural Gas 
Pipelines. In addition, the transaction that has expired has been 
deleted.
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11666 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

X

-------------:----­

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER
 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH)
 

_________________x 

PEDRO TAMAYO (AND WIFE, GABRIELLA 

TAMAYO) 

NOTICE OF THE 

BROOKFIELD 

v.	 PARTIES' ADOPTION OF 

AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

4101 AUSTIN BLVD CORPORATION, ET. AL., 

CASE NUMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 1538 

_________________x 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Brookfield Properties OLP Co. 

LLC f/k/a BFP One Liberty Plaza Co. LLC, Brookfield Financial Properties, Inc., 

Brookfield Financial Properties, L.P., Brookfield Properties One WFC Co. LLC f/k/a 

WFP Tower A Co. L.P., Brookfield Properties One WFC G.P. Corp. f/k/a WFP Tower A 

Co. GP Corp., WFP Tower B Co. L.P., WFP Tower B Co. GP Corp., WFP Tower D Co. 

L.P. and WFP Tower D Co. GP Corp. (collectively the "Brookfield Parties"), as and for 

their responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off 

Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced action, hereby 

adopt the Brookfield Parties' Answer to Master Complaint, dated October 16, 2007, 

which was filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster 

Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 47 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the above 

captioned action as against each ofthem, together with their cost and disbursements. 

Dated: New York, New York 

February ~2008

By:
 

Att
 

Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 47 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF     Document 3      Filed 08/01/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05437-AKH Document 5 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05437-AKH Document 5 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        06 May 2023    

                    USS Cooperstown is Commissioned in New York                 
                NEW YORK – The U.S. Navy commissioned its newest Freedom-variant littoral combat ship, USS Cooperstown (LCS 23) May 8, 2023, in New York City, New York.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
(August 17, 1989)

#### James Brady et al., Appellants, v Exxon Company, U.S.A., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Ira D. Conklin and Sons, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered July 11, 1988, which granted a motion by third-party defendant Dover Corporation/OPW Division (Dover) for a change of venue to Rockland County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion for a change of venue denied, without costs.

Plaintiff James Brady sustained an injury to his eye when the nozzle of the hose on a gas pump malfunctioned on February 18, 1984 at an Exxon gas station located in Bardonia, New York, in Rockland County. On September 24, 1986 plaintiffs commenced this action in Bronx County by service of a summons and complaint. Venue was based upon their residence in Bronx County, New York.

CPLR 503 (a) states that "the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced”.

Third-party defendant Dover moved for a change of venue primarily on the grounds that plaintiffs were not residents of The Bronx. The evidence does not support movant’s conten*520tion. From the affidavits submitted and the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs, it appears that when this action was commenced, the plaintiffs were residents of Bronx County. The fact that they had a home in Rockland County on the date of the accident or that they spent a part of each year in Ireland is not an indication of nonresidency in The Bronx at the time the action was commenced. Thus the motion court should not have ordered a change of venue from Bronx County. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

V.

LONNIE RAY CARTER,

Appellant.

No. 75414-9-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: February 20, 2018

PER CURIAM. Lonnie Ray Carter appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to third degree theft and possession of heroin. Carter's

counsel on appeal contends, and the State concedes, that the no-contact

provision regarding Macy's on the possession count is not crime-related. Counsel

also contends, and the State concedes, that the judgment and sentence for

possession of heroin contains a scrivener's error in its statutory citation. We

accept the State's concessions and remand with instructions to amend the

judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.

In a Statement of Additional Grounds,1 Carter contends his counsel

"labored under an actual conflict of interest." SAG at 1. He contends the conflict

1 Carter filed the same Statement of Additional Grounds (SAG) in this appeal and appeal

No. 75413-1. The appeals are taken from a single plea and sentencing hearing encompassing

two sets of convictions. Because the same attorney represented Carter on all of the matters

before the court in those hearings, and because the SAGs allege that counsel had a conflict of

interest, we address the SAG in both appeals.
No; 75414-9-1/2

resulted in a sentence that failed to provide him sufficient security from alleged

contracts for his murder. He alleges his trial counsel knew he wanted a sentence

that could be served in protective custody because he "is a 'Target' for 'Murder"

"[f]or being a 'Government Informant [.]" SAG (9/28/17) at 2. He claims counsel

failed to inform him that a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) could

not be served in the Intensive Management Unit or other forms of protective

custody. He concludes that conflict-free counsel would have obtained a sentence

providing the protection he sought.

Carter's claim involves matters largely outside the record and is therefore

reviewable only in a personal restraint petition. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d

322, 338, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). The record contains no declarations regarding

his alleged conversations with counsel. Nor does his quotation from the plea

hearing reveal the nature of any discussions with counsel. Carter did file a motion

to discharge counsel the day before sentencing, but that motion involved

counsel's pretrial conduct, not his conduct at sentencing, and is based in part on

matters outside this court's record.

Carter also contends his trial counsel and the prosecutor violated his

Eighth Amendment rights because they acted "with 'deliberate indifference' and a

disregard of Pre-trial Detainee Carter's serious safety concerns [J" SAG at 2.

This claim also involves matters outside the record, appears to be moot, and in

any event is too conclusory to merit review under RAP 10.10(c).

2
' No. 75414-9-1/3

Affirmed in part and remanded in part for amendment of the judgment and

sentence.

For the Court:

3