alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sanitized Manufacture of Substrate-Infused Carbon 

Nanostructure Complex on Substrate Number Two

50 – 100 Micron Length
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00444-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.B.C., A CHILD

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 87326D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant C.M.C. and Appellee M.S.W. have filed a “Joint Motion for Disposition 

of Appeal Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(A).” See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). The parties state that they have reached an agreement resolving the 

matters that are disputed in this appeal and request that we render judgment effectuating 

that agreement. The parties have agreed to the disposition of this appeal as follows:

 Paragraph 6 on page 13 of the judgment signed on September 27, 2016 by the 

trial court shall be modified to read as follows: “Designation of Competent Adult – Each 

conservator may designate any competent adult to pick up and return the child, as 
In re J.B.C. Page 2

applicable. IT IS ORDERED that a conservator or a designated competent adult be 

present when the child is picked up or returned.”

 Paragraph 9 on page 13 of the judgment signed on September 27, 2016 by the 

trial court shall be modified to read as follows: “All discussions relating to possession 

and any related arrangements for the child shall be between [C.M.C.] and [M.S.W.] only 

and neither party shall involve third parties in such discussions.”

 The judgment signed on September 27, 2016 by the trial court shall be affirmed 

as modified.

 All costs will be taxed against C.M.C.

We grant the parties’ joint motion. We modify paragraph 6 on page 13 of the trial 

court’s Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship, signed on September 27, 

2016, to read as follows: “Designation of Competent Adult – Each conservator may 

designate any competent adult to pick up and return the child, as applicable. IT IS 

ORDERED that a conservator or a designated competent adult be present when the child 

is picked up or returned.” We also modify paragraph 9 on page 13 of the trial court’s 

Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship, signed on September 27, 2016, to 

read as follows: “All discussions relating to possession and any related arrangements for 

the child shall be between [C.M.C.] and [M.S.W.] only and neither party shall involve 

third parties in such discussions.” We affirm the trial court’s Order in Suit Affecting the 

Parent-Child Relationship as modified. Costs are taxed against C.M.C.
In re J.B.C. Page 3

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; affirmed as modified

Opinion delivered and filed March 15, 2017

[CV06]
exv10w50







EXHIBIT 10.50




April 22, 2008




Daybreak Oil & Gas

601 W. Main Ave

Suite 1017

Spokane, Wa 99201




	 	 	 
	Attention:

	 	Tim Lindsey
	 

	 	Tom Kilbourne
	 

	 	Bob Martin






	 	 	 
	RE:

	 	North Shuteston Prospect
	 

	 	St. Landry Parish, La.






Gentlemen:



Block “T” Petroleum, Inc. has decided to accept the latest offer of the North Shuteston Prospect
with the following modifications:





We will pay the lease rentals that are due May 1, 2008.




We will pay remaining prospect fees of $10,000.00 that are unpaid as of todate.




We agree to pay the $20,000.00 additional prospect fee when well is spudded.




We agree to honor all ORRI currently understood to be four percent (4%) to the generating
geological and geophysical team.




We agree to assign a two percent (2%) ORRI to Daybreak from the initial start of production
should an economic discovery be made.


Block “T” agrees to use its best effort to drill a well within six (6) months of the lease renewal
date, however, Block “T” reserves the right to drill the well within the one (1) year lease period
due to the uncertainty of obtaining the following:




 









 








EXHIBIT 10.50





	 	1)	 	The drilling permit.
	 
	 	2)	 	Availability of a drilling rig.
	 
	 	3)	 	And time for meeting all legal requirements of the State of Louisiana.




Block “T” agrees to pay the rentals and prospect bonuses that are due and for that payment, Block
“T” will be assigned all the rights and obligations currently held by Daybreak Oil & Gas.




Sincerely,




/s/

John M. Trosclair, P.E.

President




JMT/cp




	 	 	 	 	 
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	DAYBREAK OIL & GAS	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Tim R. Lindsey, President/CEO	 	 
	 

	 	April 23, 2008	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	BLOCK “T” PETROLEUM, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ John M. Trosclair, President	 	 





This offer expires Noon April 24th, 2008. Because after that time, a wire transfer to
the land broker to pay the rentals will not be possible.
### Debentures and Other Obligations; Liability; Security
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2 023
- 35 10 LT Case No. 2019
- 307047 -CFDB

_____________________________ T ONY J OHN L AGANO , Appella nt,
v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee
.

_____________________________ On a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Bryan A. Feigenbaum, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Def ender, and Edwa rd J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Bea ch, for Appellant. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. M ay 31, 2024
P ER C URIAM . In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order revoking Appellant’s drug offender probation and the resulting judgment and sentences imposed. However, because the order

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).2 inadvertently included a violation of Special Condition 39 , which Appellant did not admit to violating and the State announced at the violation of probation hearing that it was not pursuing, we remand with direction s to the trial court to enter an amended order of revocation of drug offender probation that does not include Special Condition 39 as one of the violated conditions of probation
. A FFIRMED ; R EMANDED with directions. W ALL IS , L AMBERT , and E ISNAUGLE , JJ., concur.

________ _____________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
Notes:

This spreadsheet only goes back to 1999 and there are likely to be other releases that were not documented in the USDA/ARS plant variety release records. There may be additional releases not shown here.

## ARS Sugarcane Release Notices **Release Date Comments** 

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 89-1509 1/31/1999 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar HoCP 91-555 9/19/1999 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 92-1213 1/13/2000 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 92-1666 1/13/2000 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 92-1641 1/13/2000 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar TCP 93-4245 12/7/2001 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 94-1100 6/18/2003 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 94-1340 6/18/2003 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 89-2376 6/18/2003 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar HoCP 96-540 8/15/2003 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 96-1252 4/1/2004 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 96-1602 4/1/2004 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Variety Ho 95-988 8/23/2004 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Variety L 97-128 10/28/2004not ARS-led Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 97-1944 12/6/2004 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 97-1989 12/6/2004 Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 98-1029 8/30/2005 Notice of Release of HOCP 00-950 'Sugarcane Cultivar' 6/25/2007 Notice of Release of HOCP 91-552 'Sugarcane Cultivar' 7/9/2007not ARS-led Notice of Release of HO 00-961 'SugarCane' 7/9/2007not ARS-led Notice of Release of a High Fiber Sugarcane Variety L 79-1002 7/17/2007not ARS-led CP 01-1372, Sugarcane Saccharum 12/15/2008CPCL 97-2730, Sugarcane Saccharum 12/15/2008

CPCL 99-4455, Sugarcane 12/15/2009 Sugarcane Cultivar CP 03-1912 2/18/2011 Sugarcane Cultivar CPCL 00-4111 2/18/2011 CPCL 02-0296, Sugarcane 9/30/2011 CPCL 02-1295, Sugarcane 9/30/2011 CPCL 95-2287, Sugarcane 9/30/2011 CPCL 04-1844, Sugarcane 9/30/2011 CP 04-1844, Sugarcane 9/30/2011 CP 04-1566, Sugarcane 9/30/2011 HOCP 04-838, Sugarcane 11/7/2011 Sugarcane Variety L 03-371 not ARS-led Sugarcane Variety L 01-299 not ARS-led HO 02-113, Sugarcane 1/12/2012 CPCL 05-1791, Sugarcane 10/16/2012 CP 05-1526, Sugarcane 10/16/2012 CPCL 02-6848, Sugarcane 10/16/2012 CPCL 05-1102, Sugarcane 10/16/2012 CPCL 05-1201, Sugarcane 10/16/2012
# C_2007042EN.01002001.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Siegen (Germany), lodged on 3 January 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Frank Weber

(Case C-1/07)

(2007/C 42/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Siegen

Party to the main proceedings

Frank Weber

Question referred

Is Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is precluded, within its territory, from refusing to recognise or from denying the validity of an entitlement to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State because the right to drive was withdrawn from its holder in the first Member State after the grant to him in another Member State of a so-called ‘second’ EU right to drive, if the withdrawal of the right to drive is based on an incident or on misconduct which occurred prior to the grant of the right to drive by the other Member State?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/439/EC of 29 July 1991 on driving licenses, OJ L 237, p. 1.

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.91 Who takes title to property purchased with funds under a self-determination contract or grant agreement pursuant to section 105(f)(2)(A) of the Act?

The contractor takes title to such property, unless the contractor chooses to have the United States take title. In that event, the contractor must inform the Secretary of the purchase and identify the property and its location in such manner as the contractor and the Secretary deem necessary. A request for the United States to take title to any item of contractor-purchased property may be made at any time. A request for the Secretary to take fee title to real property shall be expeditiously processed in accordance with applicable Federal law and regulation.
# C_2007069EN.01001702.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — C v Commission

(Case T-166/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Breach of administrative duty - Loss of opportunity)

(2007/C 69/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: C (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Sambon, P.-P. Van Gehuchten and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Firstly, application for annulment of the implied decision to reject the applicant's application for enforcement of the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on [confidential] (2) in Case [confidential] and, in so far as necessary, the decision to reject the applicant's complaint of 12 February 2004 and, secondly, application for compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

2

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the applicant, Mr C, the sum of EUR 15 000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the applicant, Mr C, the sum of EUR 15 000.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

1

(2)  Confidential information omitted.

2

---
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON CO UNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 1 5th
day of July, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ROBERT F. CLAYTON , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00018

- CR; Trial Court No. 31223

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by

this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and tha t the

decision be certified to the court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 24 th day of A u gust , 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 32


    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Columbus   McKinnon
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 28, 2003
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  each of the undersigned  does hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


Dated:  February 11, 2004
        -----------------



                                                 /S/ TIMOTHY T. TEVENS
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Timothy T. Tevens,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


                                                 /S/ ROBERT L. MONTGOMERY JR.
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Robert L.  Montgomery, Jr.
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Monday, February 
28, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), 
(5), (7), and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the 
Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the item 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no 
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday, 
February 28, 2011 will be:
    Institution of administrative proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    February 25, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4695 Filed 2-25-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
# C_2006310EN.01001102.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/11

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — PTV v OHIM (map&guide)

(Case T-302/03) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark map&guide - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 310/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Müller and G. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2003 (Case R 1046/2001-2), concerning an application for registration of the word mark map&guide as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-69740, 333-87538, 33-90730, 33-91084,
333-43317, 333-43319 and 333-61339) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-94542, 333-10221
and 333-84537) of Glimcher Realty Trust of our report dated February 23, 2004,
except for Note 20, as to which the date is February 27, 2004 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedules, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Columbus, OH
March 11, 2004
H. Res. 465

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 11, 2000.

Whereas April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, which provides Congress the opportunity to focus attention and

raise awareness of the problem of newborn babies abandoned in public places;

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services reports that, in 1998, 31,000 babies were delivered and

abandoned in hospitals by mothers;

Whereas an unknown number of newborn babies are abandoned in dumpsters, trash bins, alleys, warehouses, and

bathrooms;

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services conducted an informal survey of major newspapers and

found that, in 1998, 105 babies were found abandoned

in public places in the United States, of which 33 were

found dead, and that, in 1991, 65 babies were abandoned, of which 8 were found dead;

Whereas national statistics on the number of infants abandoned in public places are not kept, though States are required to submit data to the Department of Health and

Human Services on the number of children who enter

foster care as a result of abandonment in general;
2

•HRES 465 EH

Whereas Texas is the only State to have enacted a law designed to address this social problem, though 24 other

States are considering such legislation, including Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,

Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Tennessee, Connecticut, Oregon, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Michigan, and New Mexico; and

Whereas there are innovative model programs in Houston,

Mobile, Minneapolis, and Syracuse that protect mothers

who take newborns to hospitals or some other safe haven

rather than dumping them in a trash bin or leaving them

on a doorstep: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That local, State, and Federal statistics should

be kept on the number of babies abandoned in public places.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2007133EN.01001901.xml

| 15.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/19

---

Call for proposals under the draft annual work programme for grants in the field of the Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E) for 2007

(Commission Decision C(2007) 2479)

(2007/C 133/08)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, is hereby launching a call for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the draft annual work programme for grants in the field of the Trans-European Energy Network for 2007.

The maximum amount available under this call for proposals, for 2007, is EUR 21 200 000.

21 200 000

The call is closing on 31 August 2007.

31 August 2007

The complete text of the Call for proposals is available on:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/grants/proposal_en.htm

---
# C_2007069EN.01002101.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/21

---

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v European Parliament

(Case T-18/07)

(2007/C 69/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W.L. Weh, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Parliament to declare the mandate of one of its Members valid, by reason of its nullity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Parliament to declare the mandate of one of its Members valid, by reason of its nullity;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant's standard costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant's standard costs.

Grounds and principal arguments

The applicant stood for election to the European Parliament in the European Parliament elections which were held on 13 June 2004 in Austria.

By the present action, he challenges the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005, according to which the applicant's challenge to the validity of the mandate of one of its Members is to be regarded as unfounded.

In support of his claim, the applicant submits in particular that the Austrian rules on allocation of preferential votes are incompatible with Article 1 of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage (1) and are thus contrary to Community law.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 5.

1

---