alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Evangeline S. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 14, 2015

No. 04-15-00462-CV

Joshua Chubasco LIRA,

Appellant

v.

Evangeline S. SAMUDIO

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-07757

Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 24, 2015, Appellant Joshua Chubasco Lira filed a notice of appeal in this court. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a). The same day, the clerk of this court notified Appellant in writing 

that our records do not show that the $195.00 or $10.00 filing fees have been paid. Further, our 

records do not show that Appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fees. See

id. R. 5 (requiring fees in civil cases); id. R. 20.1 (waiving fees if indigence established). The 

clerk’s July 24, 2015 letter warned Appellant if the filing fees were not paid by August 7, 2015, 

the appeal could be stricken by the court. To date, this court has not received payment or an 

affidavit of indigence. See id. R. 20.1(c)(1). 

The clerk’s letter also advised Appellant that the docketing statement must be filed with 

this court by August 7, 2015. See id. R. 32.1; 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 5.2, 

available at http://www.txcourts.gov/4thcoa/practice-before-the-court/local-rules.aspx. To date, 

no docketing statement has been filed. Appellant must file a docketing statement within TEN 

DAYS of the date of this order. 

We ORDER Appellant Joshua Chubasco Lira to show cause in writing within TEN 

DAYS of the date of this order that either (1) the $195.00 and $10.00 filing fees have been paid, 

or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fees. If Appellant fails to respond 

within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c); In re 
W.J.C., No. 04-05-00532-CV, 2005 WL 3477883 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 21, 2005, no 

pet.) (mem. op.). 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of August, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### § 117.8 Purchase of land.

Upon written application of an adult Indian, the superintendent may disburse not to exceed $10,000 from the surplus funds of such Indian for the purchase of land, the title to which has been examined and accepted by the special attorney for the Osage Indians or other legal officer designated by the Commissioner. In all cases title must be taken by deed containing a clause restricting alienation or encumbrance without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative.
UIC Inventory by State - 2013

State Region Population

(,000)

Area

(sq. mi)

Class I

Hazardous

(Wells)

Class I

Other

(Wells)

Class II

(Wells)

Class III

 (Sites) (Wells)

Class IV

(Sites)

Class V 

(Wells)

AK 10 710 570,641 - 30 1,386 - - - 1,857

AL 4 4,780 50,645 - - 257 1 3 - 769

AR 6 2,916 52,035 4 9 1,118 - - - 209

AS 9 56 76 - - - - - - -

AZ 9 6,392 113,594 - - - 3 15 - 35,273

CA 9 37,254 155,779 - 52 51,982 1 136 - 20,319

CO 8 5,029 103,642 - 19 901 5 30 - 2,121

CT 1 3,574 4,842 - - - - - - 773

DC 3 602 61 - - - - - - 130

DE 3 898 1,949 - - - - - - 1,657

FL 4 18,801 53,625 1 242 64 - - - 13,244

GA 4 9,688 57,513 - - - - - - 13,233

GU 9 159 210 - - - - - - 487

HI 9 1,360 6,423 - - - - - - 6,273

IA 7 3,046 55,857 - - 7 - - - 1,936

ID 10 1,568 82,643 - - - - - - 16,921

IL 5 12,831 55,519 3 11 7,858 - - - 26,479

IN 5 6,484 35,826 4 24 1,242 - - - 9,387

KS 7 2,853 81,759 5 64 16,947 4 155 - 7,436

KY 4 4,339 39,486 - 8 3,063 - - - 14,264

LA 6 4,533 43,204 20 20 3,755 19 98 - 423

MA 1 6,548 7,800 - - - - - - 3,672

MD 3 5,774 9,707 - - - - - - 13,464

ME 1 1,328 30,843 - - - - - - 1,979

MI 5 9,884 56,539 9 21 1,432 5 47 - 5,079

MN 5 5,304 79,627 - - - - - - 3,062

MO 7 5,989 68,742 - - 519 - - - 3,347

MP 9 54 182 - - - - - - 18

MS 4 2,967 46,923 5 6 1,311 - - - 7,545

MT 8 989 145,546 - - 1,178 - - - 6,405

NC 4 9,535 48,618 - - - - - 3 10,613

ND 8 673 69,001 - 4 1,349 - - - 668

NE 7 1,826 76,824 - 3 666 1 4,332 - 1,183

NH 1 1,316 8,953 - - - - - - 10,904

NJ 2 8,792 7,354 - - - - - - 968

NM 6 2,059 121,298 - 5 4,512 9 10 - 1,786

NV 9 2,701 109,781 - - 18 - - - 2,138

NY 2 19,378 47,126 - 1 406 6 183 - 30,727

OH 5 11,537 40,861 10 - 2,397 4 52 - 14,740

OK 6 3,751 68,595 - 6 11,432 - - 2 1,973

OR 10 3,831 95,988 - - 9 - - 15 34,027

PA 3 12,702 44,743 - - 1,853 - - - 14,750

PR 2 3,726 3,424 - - - - - - 3,341

1
UIC Inventory by State - 2013

State Region Population

(,000)

Area

(sq. mi)

Class I

Hazardous

(Wells)

Class I

Other

(Wells)

Class II

(Wells)

Class III

 (Sites) (Wells)

Class IV

(Sites)

Class V 

(Wells)

RI 1 1,053 1,034 - - - - - - 1,582

SC 4 4,625 30,061 - - - - - - 11,809

SD 8 814 75,811 - - 134 14 14 - 377

TN 4 6,346 41,235 - - 23 - - - 1,734

TX 6 25,146 261,232 79 86 54,332 85 6,987 6 41,169

UT 8 2,764 82,170 - - 640 3 53 2 1,395

VA 3 8,001 39,490 - - 12 1 7 - 11,825

VI 2 106 134 - - - - - - 71

VT 1 626 9,217 - - - - - - 1,833

WA 10 6,725 66,456 - - 1 - - - 49,785

WI 5 5,687 54,158 - - - - - - 1,778

WV 3 1,853 24,038 - - 402 1 13 - 3,520

WY 8 564 97,093 - 59 5,122 9 10,552 - 2,493

 All Tribes 1,081 120,294 - 2 4,186 - - - 2,992

TOTAL 313,928 3,656,227 140 672 180,514 171 22,687 28 477,943

2
#### § 1000.367 Will the Department evaluate a Tribe's/Consortium's performance of non-trust related programs?

This depends on the terms contained in the AFA.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 107 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 107

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate 
    should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
                     Discrimination Against Women.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 1999

Ms. Woolsey (for herself, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mrs. Maloney 
of New York, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Lee, Mr. Sanders, 
Mr. Markey, Mr. George Miller of California, Mrs. Morella, Ms. Kaptur, 
   Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Olver, Mr. 
   Shays, Mr. Abercrombie, Ms. Waters, Mr. Filner, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. 
   Conyers, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Payne, Mr. Serrano, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. 
  Waxman, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Lewis of 
Georgia, Mrs. Stabenow, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Lofgren, Mrs. 
  Napolitano, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Farr of California, Ms. 
   Rivers, Mr. Gejdenson, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Lampson) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                       on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate 
    should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
                     Discrimination Against Women.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the full realization of the rights of women is vital to 
        the development and well-being of people of all nations; and
            (2) the Senate should, therefore, give its advice and 
        consent to the ratification of the Convention on the 
        Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
                                 <all>
```
TS-ASLT10/20/30 

Attachment #7

Pt. 2, Sec. B, 1a 

Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance at Industrial Sites 

Controlled by Others 
Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical 

Substances at Industrial Sites Controlled by Others – Manufacture and Processing
# C_2013220EN.01000401.xml

| 1.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2013/C 220/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 19.6.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.35984 (13/NN) |
| Member State | Hungary |
| Region | Hungary | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | a részarány földkiadás során keletkezett osztatlan közös termőföldtulajdon megszüntetéséhez nyújtandó támogatás |
| Legal basis | — | a földrendező és a földkiadó bizottságokról szóló 1993. évi II. törvény 15. §-a, |

Date of adoption of the decision

19.6.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.35984 (13/NN)

Member State

Hungary

Region

Hungary

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

a részarány földkiadás során keletkezett osztatlan közös termőföldtulajdon megszüntetéséhez nyújtandó támogatás

Legal basis

—

a földrendező és a földkiadó bizottságokról szóló 1993. évi II. törvény 15. §-a,

| — | 405/2012 (XII.28.) Korm. rendelet a részarány földkiadás során keletkezett osztatlan közös tulajdon megszüntetésének részletes szabályairól |
| --- | --- |

—

405/2012 (XII.28.) Korm. rendelet a részarány földkiadás során keletkezett osztatlan közös tulajdon megszüntetésének részletes szabályairól

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Land reparcelling

Form of aid

Other

Budget

Overall budget: HUF 25 000 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2018

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium |
| --- |
| Budapest |
| Kossuth Lajos tér 11. |
| 1055 |
| MAGYARORSZÁG/HUNGARY |

Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium

Budapest

Kossuth Lajos tér 11.

1055

MAGYARORSZÁG/HUNGARY

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
### **CHAPTER 275—PROPRIETARY CONTRACTOR DATA AND RIGHTS IN TECHNICAL DATA**

Subchapter
Sec.
I.
Rights in Technical Data
3771
II.
Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions
3781
III.
Other Provisions Relating to Proprietary Contractor Data and Rights in Technical Data
3791

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 275 "PROPRIETARY CONTRACTOR DATA AND TECHNICAL DATA", as added by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §801(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1828, and consisting of reserved section 3771, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1833(a)(1), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4225.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERUNDER SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

 

    	 Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Can-fiteBioPharmaLtd. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

     	(i)    	theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

    	(ii)   	theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

Dated: March 31, 2016

 

/s/ Pnina Fishman ____

Pnina Fishman, Ph.D.

Chief Executive Officer

 

The foregoing certification is beingfurnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCosmos-1989 immunology studiesEvidence from both human and rodent studies has indicated that alterations in immunological parameters occur after space flight. The number of flight experiments has been small, and the full breadth of immunological alterations occurring after space flight remains to be established. Among the major effects on immune responses after space flight that have been reported are: alterations in lymphocyte blastogenesis and natural killer cell activity, alterations in production of cytokines, changes in leukocyte sub-population distribution, and decreases in the ability in the ability of bone marrow cells to respond to colony stimulating factors. Changes have been reported in immunological parameters of both humans and rodents. The significance of these alterations in relation to resistance to infection remains to be established. The current study involved a determination of the effects of flight on Cosmos mission 2044 on leukocyte subset distribution and the sensitivity of bone marrow cells to colony stimulating factor-GM. A parallel study with antiorthostatic suspension was also carried out. The study involved repetition and expansion of studies carried out on Cosmos 1887.Document ID19920003171Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsSonnenfeld, Gerald*(Louisville Univ. KY, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1991Subject CategoryLife Sciences (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA-CR-188970NAS 1.26:188970Accession Number92N12389Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG2-614Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920003171.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 304.27 Fees.

The agency will charge fees for duplication of records under the Privacy Act in the same way in which it charges duplication fees under § 304.9 of subpart A. No search or review fee may be charged for any record under the Privacy Act.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOROTHY LEE ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00837-JFA-1; 3:14-cv-03576-JFA)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothy Lee Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dorothy Lee Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We also deny Anderson’s motions for appointment of 

counsel and for preparation of a transcript at government 

expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGIONIX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941O539O1 NOV
2 4 2009 Ms. Karen Magliano, Manager Air Quality Data Branch Planning and Technical Support Division Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Dear Ms. Magliano: Thank youfor your timely submission

of the 2009 Annual Monitoring Network Report for Small Districts

in California. We have reviewed the submitted document and have found that it meetsthe minimum requirements

setforth under 40 CFR Part 58.10. While this letter serves asofficial approval of the annual network plan,
it does not constitute approval of the system modifications that are proposed

in the plan for the future. We will continue
to work with the districts represented

in the plan to review proposed system changes. O

If youhave any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contactmeat (415) 972-3261

orMeredith Kurpius

at (415) 947-4534./4——-•—4esepLpka, Acting Manager Air Divisfoii Air Quality Analysis Office cc:Ken Stroud, CARE Merrin Wright, CARB-- Pheng Lee, CARE Meredith Kurpius

PrintedonReyc1ed Paper
#### LOCAL UNION NO. 370, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, Local Union No. 1227, Laborers’ International Union of North America, and Robert Townsley, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. Arth E. DETRICK, Leo R. Clawson, Artell Suitter, and Bonneville County, Idaho, Appellees.

No. 76-1710.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1979.

Robert S. Moore (argued), Boise, Idaho, for appellants.

Dennis M. Olsen (argued), Idaho Falls, Idaho, for appellees.

Before GOODWIN and HUG, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*1046PER CURIAM:

Unable to compel a county government to bargain collectively under federal Labor Management Relations Acts . (29 U.S.C. § 152(2)), two local unions and individual plaintiffs sought to compel the same result by a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They appeal a judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

Despite counsel’s fine-tuning of their pleading to attempt to state a claim for a denial of rights of speech and association, the complaint alleges in substance nothing more than the county’s refusal to renew various collective-bargaining agreements, or to enter into new ones. Nothing in the complaint describes a denial of any constitutional right to associate, or to make speeches.

The alleged deprivations all arise out of the failure of association and speech to produce results. The county government’s refusal to bargain on matters of wages, hours, and working conditions is a right preserved for state governments and their subdivisions by the express terms of Section 152(2). Except when the state by an act of its own legislature compels counties to bargain with unions, counties have no duty to do so.

The county did not threaten to fire union members, but to fire strikers. Strikes impede government economy and performance of services. The county has no constitutional duty to put up with strikes. The county made its decision against collective bargaining only after extensively listening to the unions’ proposals. In sum, the employees’ rights to assemble and be heard were fully respected.

That the employees emerged from the negotiating process dissatisfied is not surprising. However, the employee complaints are strictly contractual, not constitutional. Plaintiffs point to no constitutional right to achieve the goals they assembled and petitioned to discuss. *See Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp.,*457 F.2d 456 (7th Cir. 1972).

The state courts are available for litigation of any contractual claim the employees may have.

Affirmed.
(November 28, 2006)

#### Adriane R. Ferguson, Respondent, v Honda Lease Trust et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[826 NYS2d 10]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered on or about January 19, 2006, which denied a motion and cross motion by three of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the *357law, without costs, the motion and cross motion granted, and the complaint dismissed as to Honda Lease Trust, Lakeisha Laws and Tony Ward. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

This personal injury action arises from a one-lane, five-car collision on the lower span of the George Washington Bridge. The record evidence establishes that at least the first two cars had come to a complete stop prior to being hit from behind. Plaintiffs speculation that appellants’ vehicles could have been moving or perhaps had stopped suddenly are unsupported by any evidence and are refuted by the movants’ affidavits, as well as plaintiffs sworn no-fault statement and the police accident report. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the rear driver *(see Garcia v Bakemark Ingredients [E.] Inc.,*19 AD3d 224 [2005]). “[T]he rearmost driver in a chain-reaction collision bears a presumption of responsibility” *(De La Cruz v Ock Wee Leong,*16 AD3d 199, 200 [2005]). Movants demonstrated their right to summary judgment, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to present some nonnegligent explanation to raise a triable issue of fact as to negligence to warrant a trial *(see Agramonte v City of New York,*288 AD2d 75 [2001]). This plaintiff failed to do so. We have reviewed appellants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and McGuire, JJ.
----

----

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

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

|   |                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Mark Gatto Mark GattoCo-President and Co-Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
|   | CĪON Investment Corporation                                                                       |