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

-  about 

#           Documents      

-  About 
-  About Us 
-  Survey Manual 
-  Key Officials 
-  Organization 
-  Congressional 
-  Budget 
-  Careers and Employees 
-  Doing Business 
-  Emergency Management 
-  Documents 
-  Emergency Management Resources 

This is a collection of supporting documents to include instructions, training materials, technical memos, flowcharts, analytical references, and more. 

Official USGS Publications

**File icon

May 3, 2023

####   MOU Template for Federal Agencies

**File icon

May 3, 2023

####   MOU Template for Non-federal Agencies

**File icon

April 14, 2023

####   Renewables-Wildlife Solutions Initiative Info Sheet

**File icon

April 11, 2023

####   Introduction to Claim Evidence Reasoning - Example and Student Instructions

**File icon

April 11, 2023

####   Claim Evidence Reasoning Activity - Teacher Instructions

**File icon

April 11, 2023

####   Wildland Fire Stats

**File icon

April 6, 2023

####   Kansas Water Science Center Presents: Science Seminar Series Ecological Drought: Indicators of Vulnerability and Risk for Riverine Ecosystems

**File icon

April 6, 2023

####   Kansas Water Science Center Quarterly Newsletter April 2023

**File icon

April 6, 2023

####   Earth Day 2023

**File icon

April 5, 2023

####   Sample Guided Reading Activity

**File icon

April 5, 2023

####   Notice, Reflect, Question: Student Instructions

**File icon

April 5, 2023

####   Notice, Reflect, Question: Teacher Instructions

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
- ...
-                Page            3 
-                Page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Page            6 
-                Current page            7 
-                Page            8 
-                Page            9 
-                Page            10 
-                Page            11 
- ...
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 9 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-5282 September Term, 2014

1:09-cv-01364-CKK

Filed On: July 10, 2015

Sharon M. Harrison,

Appellant

v.

Office of the Architect of the Capitol,

Appellee

BEFORE: Tatel, Brown, and Millett, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition

thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of

the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers

Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). As this

court recently explained, see Swann v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 598 Fed.

Appx. 13, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Newton v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 598 Fed.

Appx. 12, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2015); the Congressional Accountability Act (“Act”) incorporates

Title VII’s substantive discrimination provisions by reference. See 2 U.S.C. § 1311; see

also Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Therefore,

contrary to appellant’s argument, the district court correctly applied Title VII case law in

analyzing her claim of discrimination under the Act. 

Appellant also argues that the district court should not have used Title VII case

law in analyzing her retaliation claims under the Act, but she has made no effort to

show how application of a different standard would have changed the outcome. The

court therefore declines to address the issue. To the extent appellant argues the

district court committed error under Title VII standards in analyzing her hostile work

environment claims, she has failed to show that her employer’s conduct was

“sufficiently severe or pervasive” to constitute a hostile work environment. Ayissi-Etoh

v. Fannie Mae, 712 F.3d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-5282 September Term, 2014

The Clerk is directed to publish this order. The Clerk is further directed to

withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely

petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C.

Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
#### SCHWARZ et al. v. HARRIS.

(District Court, D. Oregon.

December 29, 1913.)

No. 3,095.

1. Interest (§ 39*)—Judgment—Set-Off—Interest-Bearing Claim.

Where defendant sought to set off a noninterest-bearing demand against one which clearly bore interest from the date judgment was entered, defendant was not entitled to object that plaintiffs were allowed interest on their judgment from its date, while defendant was only allowed a set-off without interest.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Interest, Cent. Dig. §§ 83-89; Dec. Dig. § 39.*]

2. Interest (§ 50*)—Effect of Tender.

Where defendant’s answer pleaded a set-off and declared his willingness to pay the difference that existed between the amount of plaintiffs’ judgment and defendant’s claim, but whether there should be a set-off .was a question-which was not determined until the case was finally disposed of, and a tender alleged in the answer was not proved, and there was no tender of money into court, plaintiffs were properly allowed interest after answer.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Interest, Cent. Dig. § 114; Dee. Dig. § 50.*]

*1001On application for interpretation of opinion.'

See, also, 206 Fed. 936.

John A. Carson, of Salem, Or., for plaintiffs.

Martin L. Pipes, of Portland, Or., for defendant.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

WOLVERTON, District Judge.

I am asked to interpret my decision in this cause respecting the decree to be entered.

The plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant the amount of their judgment heretofore rendered against Julia A. Kennedy as administratrix, together with interest from the date of the judgment, namely, June 19, 1906, at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, to the date of the decision rendered herein. The defendant is entitled to offset this judgment in the sum of $2,520, without interest.

[1] The situation is that the defendant sought to offset a nonbearing-interest demand against one which clearly bears interest from the date the judgment was rendered. The defendant ought not to complain that he has not been awarded interest, because it was by reason of his own wrongful acts that the plaintiffs were kept out of the possession of the hops.

[2] It is urged that interest ought not to be awarded on the judgment after the answer was tendered in the present suit, because the defendant declared his willingness to pay the difference then existing between the amount of the judgment and the defendant’s claim. But the question whether there should be any offset at all was a vital one in the case, which was not determined until the case was finally disposed of. Furthermore, the answer alleges a tender, which was not proven, and there was no tender of the money in court.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30210

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jereme Thomas, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-269-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jereme Thomas, federal prisoner # 29977-034, appeals the denial of 

his motion under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

132 Stat. 5194, 5222, to reduce his 240-month sentence for conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine base. We review the district court’s decision to deny 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 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30210 Document: 00515978759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2021
No. 20-30210

2

First Step Act reduction for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Jackson, 

945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2699 (2020). 

Although Thomas contends that the district court failed to 

acknowledge the applicable amended guidelines range, the order denying the 

First Step Act motion listed the amended guidelines range and the amended 

statutory minimum. Thomas also argues that the district court did not 

adequately explain its reasons for denying First Step Act relief, but Thomas’s 

arguments in his motion were before the district court, which gave specific 

reasons, tied to relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, for denying a reduction. 

See United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-30210 Document: 00515978759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2021
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify that
the foregoing Quarterly Report of CLAIMSNET.COM INC. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending June 30, 2005 (the Report):  (1)
    
    Fully complies with the requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    Fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition
and consolidated results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report. /s/ Don CrosbieDon CrosbiePresident and Chief Executive OfficerJuly 26, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to this Report pursuant to Item
601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, Unites States Code) and, accordingly, is not being
filed as part of this Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES MILLER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 309 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of February, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

matter.
#### In the Matter of Milton L. Miller et al., Appellants, v William Canary et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to *200validate a petition designating Milton L. Miller, Philip J. McSweeney and James R. Ketcham as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, for the respective public offices of Supervisor of the Town of East Hampton, East Hampton Town Councilman, and East Hampton Town Justice, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J., on decision; Gowan, J., on judgment), dated August 19, 1987, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the proceeding. The notice of appeal from the decision of Justice Doyle dated August 11, 1987, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, properly dismissed the proceeding as untimely. Pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (2), the last day to commence a proceeding with respect to a designating petition was July 30, 1987, 14 days following the deadline for filing a petition. Having received timely notice of the board’s decision to invalidate their petition *(cf., Matter of Pell v Coveney,*37 NY2d 494) the petitioners’ commencement of the proceeding on August 33, 1987, was untimely *(see,*Election Law § 16-102 [2]; *cf., Matter of Palais v D'Apice,*112 AD2d 1078). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
# CE2012070EN.01013803.xml

| 8.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/138 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/138

---

Tuesday 19 October 2010Approval of amendments to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries ***

P7_TA(2010)0364

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 October 2010 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (11076/2010 – C7-0181/2010 – 2010/0042(NLE))

2012/C 70 E/20

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (11076/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (11076/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 43(2), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0181/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 43(2), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0181/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A7-0262/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A7-0262/2010),

| 1. | Consents to the approval of the Amendment to the Convention; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to the approval of the Amendment to the Convention;

| 2. | Requests the Council and the Commission to set up, before negotiations are opened relating to the revision of provisions in the framework of the Regional Fisheries Organisations to be carried out by the EU, the schemes necessary to ensure the appropriate participation by Parliament's observers therein; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Requests the Council and the Commission to set up, before negotiations are opened relating to the revision of provisions in the framework of the Regional Fisheries Organisations to be carried out by the EU, the schemes necessary to ensure the appropriate participation by Parliament's observers therein;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 32 – Lunar Calibration      

      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, we hear how calibration teams use the surface of the moon and unchanging landscapes to improve Landsat data.

View Media Details

View

Download and Transcript Access

View Media Details

**Summary**: Calibration teams at the USGS EROS Center use a variety of methods to make sure the data collected by Landsat satellites are an accurate representation of the Earth’s surface. They’re constantly comparing new imagery to old, tweaking algorithms to correct issues that might emerge, and using unchanging Earth surface sites and on-the-ground readings to check for consistency. Since the launch of Landsat 8, they’ve come to rely on another unchanging landscape to check for quality: the lunar surface. In this episode of Eyes on Earth, we hear how it’s done.

**Guest**: Cody Anderson, USGS EROS Cal-Val Center of Excellence Project Manager

**Host**: Tom Adamson

**Producer**: John Hult

**Release date**: August 24, 2020

**More on Calibration**: 
                            - Landsat Looks to the Moon
                            - Landsat-8 Operational Land Imager Radiometric Calibration and Stability
                            - EROS Cal/Val Center of Excellence (ECCOE) Test Sites Catalog

### Contacts
Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 22 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 22 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 22 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 3 of 3
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR Document 25 Filed 09/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR Document 25 Filed 09/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR Document 25 Filed 09/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH Document 16 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH Document 16 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH     Document 19      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH     Document 19      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH     Document 19      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 3 of 3
# C_2009302EN.01002001.xml

| 12.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/20

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 302/09

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Pointe-à-Pitre–La Désirade
  Pointe-à-Pitre–Les Saintes
  Pointe-à-Pitre–Marie-Galante
  Pointe-à-Pitre–Saint-Barthélemy
  Pointe-à-Pitre–Saint-Martin (Grand Case) |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | Repeal |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained | Order of 10 November 2009 repealing the public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Pointe-à-Pitre, on the one hand, and La Désirade, Les Saintes, Marie-Galante, Saint-Martin (Grand Case) and Saint-Barthélemy, on the other
  NOR: DEVA0926582A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further details:





  Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile |
| DTA/SDT/T2 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris Cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tél. +33 158094321 |
| E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Routes concerned

Pointe-à-Pitre–La Désirade

Pointe-à-Pitre–Les Saintes

Pointe-à-Pitre–Marie-Galante

Pointe-à-Pitre–Saint-Barthélemy

Pointe-à-Pitre–Saint-Martin (Grand Case)

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

Repeal

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained

Order of 10 November 2009 repealing the public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Pointe-à-Pitre, on the one hand, and La Désirade, Les Saintes, Marie-Galante, Saint-Martin (Grand Case) and Saint-Barthélemy, on the other

NOR: DEVA0926582A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further details:

Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile

DTA/SDT/T2

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

Tél. +33 158094321

E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---