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

2 

LANALSIKOV LOWE, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND CLARK COUNTY 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 63096 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS 

Docket Nos. 63107, 63108, and 63109 are proper person 

petitions for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition. 

Docket No. 63096 is a proper person petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner requests that the charges pending against him be dismissed 

with prejudice and that various attorneys and the district court judge be 

charged with crimes and/or suspended from the practice of law. We have 

reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding 

upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise 

original jurisdiction in these matters. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; NRS 

34.320; NRS 34.330; NRS 34.360; NRS 34.370; NRS 34.700; NRS 34.710. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petitions DENIED. 

/-11t4-" 

Hardesty 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

Parraguirr 
cc: Lanalsikov Lowe 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Clark County Public Defender 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 I947A 

3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**RICHARD GEORGE SCHMIDT, M.D.**

**v.**

**STEVEN LEE LEBOON AND**

**CASSANDRA LEBOON**

**PETITION OF: STEVEN LEE LEBOON :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 66 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 24th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for** 

**Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **, the Application for Relief, the Motion for**

**Extraordinary Relief and Sanctions, and the Renewed a nd Enlarged Motion for** 

**Extraordinary Relief are** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 12

- 00149

- CR & 01

- 12

- 00150

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 1309786 & 1309787

Style: Glen Tate

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : February 15, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to Ab ate Appeal

Party filing motion: Appellant (acting pro se)

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, m oot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn Keyes

Acting individually Ac ting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: April 30, 2013
<PAGE>
                                       
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

     The following is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant:

SUBSIDIARY                              STATE IN WHICH ORGANIZED

Hawkins Water Treatment Group, Inc.            Minnesota


The financial statements of the predecessors of Hawkins Water Treatment 
Group, Inc., Feed-Rite Controls, Inc., Mon-Dak Chemical, Inc., and Dakota 
Chemical, Inc. (which predecessors were merged into a single entity now known 
as Hawkins Water Treatment Group, Inc. following the end of fiscal 1997), are 
consolidated with those of the Registrant.

Subsequent to September 27, 1998, Hawkins Water Treatment Group is being 
merged into Registrant and will continue to operate as a division of 
Registrant.
SPECIMEN INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT
                  PURSUANT TO NEVADA REVISED STATUES ss. 78.235




Name
Address

Dear __________:

         This information statement certifies that __________________________ is
the  registered  holder of  ______________  shares of common  stock of BLUE MOON
INVESTMENTS, a Nevada corporation,  transferable on the books of the corporation
in person or by execution of a power of attorney.

         Witness  the seal of the  corporation  and the  signatures  of its duly
authorized officers:

Dated: ________________

BLUE MOON INVESTMENTS

By: ___________________                                   [SEAL]
    Dev Randhawa, President

By: ___________________
    Bob Hemmerling, Secretary
### §43. Sequoia National Park; rules and regulations; leases; fish and game; trespassers

Sequoia National Park shall be under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior, whose duty it shall be, as soon as practicable, to make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the care and management of the same. Such regulations shall provide for the preservation from injury of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities or wonders within said park, and their retention in their natural condition. The Secretary may, in his discretion, grant leases for building purposes for terms not exceeding ten years of small parcels of ground not exceeding five acres, at such places in said park as shall require the erection of buildings for the accommodation of visitors; all of the proceeds of said leases and other revenues that may be derived from any source connected with said park to be expended under his direction in the management of the same and the construction of roads and paths therein. He shall provide against the wanton destruction of the fish and game found within said park, and against their capture or destruction, for the purposes of merchandise or profit. He shall also cause all persons trespassing upon the same after the passage of this section and section 41 of this title to be removed therefrom, and, generally, shall be authorized to take all such measures as shall be necessary or proper to fully carry out the objects and purposes of this section and section 41 of this title.

(Sept. 25, 1890, ch. 926, §2, 26 Stat. 478.)
### §410eeee–17. Applicable provisions of other law

#### (a) Cooperative agreements

The provisions of section 460ww–1(e)(1) of this title shall apply to the New River Gorge National River 1 in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to the Gauley River National Recreation Area.

#### (b) Remnant lands

The provisions of the second sentence of section 460ww–2(a) of this title shall apply to tracts of land partially within the boundaries of the New River Gorge National River 1 in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to tracts of land only partially within the Gauley River National Recreation Area.

(Pub. L. 95–625, title XI, §1117, as added Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title IV, §406(a)(3), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4150.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 460m–30 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

New River Gorge National River redesignated New River Gorge National Park and Preserve by Pub. L. 116–260, div. FF, title II, §202, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 3089, which is classified to section 410eeee of this title.

1 See Change of Name note below.
Exhibit 12.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Takashi Miyoshi, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Hitachi, Ltd.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) [Reserved]



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                                
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:    August 7, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Takashi Miyoshi                                            
|                        |  |     |  | Name:         Takashi Miyoshi                                  
|                        |  |     |  | Title:           Executive Vice President and Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 22, 2011 

Order 

 

March 22, 2011 

141739(98) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 141739 

v COA: 278411 

Kent CC: 06-006768-FC 

SAMMIE RAY BAILEY, JR., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant-appellee for extension of 

the time for filing his brief on appeal is considered and, it appearing the brief was filed 

March 8, 2011, the time for filing is extended to that date.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKEY B. REED, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL 

unincorporated tax exempt not for profit 

association; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 15-56988 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01796-DMGAGR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Rickey B. Reed appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 

diversity action alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract and other state law 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-56988 

district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). 

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reed’s implied-in-fact contract claim 

because Reed failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants “voluntarily 

accepted [Reed’s proposal] knowing the conditions on which it was tendered and 

the reasonable value of the work.” Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965, 

967 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the elements of a claim under Desny v. Wilder, 

299 P.2d 257 (Cal. 1956), for a breach of implied-in-fact contract when an idea is 

furnished by one party to another).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Reed’s motions seeking to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 21-23) 

are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDynamic Simulation of a Wave Rotor Topped Turboshaft EngineThe dynamic behavior of a wave rotor topped turboshaft engine is examined using a numerical simulation. The simulation utilizes an explicit, one-dimensional, multi-passage, CFD based wave rotor code in combination with an implicit, one-dimensional, component level dynamic engine simulation code. Transient responses to rapid fuel flow rate changes and compressor inlet pressure changes are simulated and compared with those of a similarly sized, untopped, turboshaft engine. Results indicate that the wave rotor topped engine responds in a stable, and rapid manner. Furthermore, during certain transient operations, the wave rotor actually tends to enhance engine stability. In particular, there is no tendency toward surge in the compressor of the wave rotor topped engine during rapid acceleration. In fact, the compressor actually moves slightly away from the surge line during this transient. This behavior is precisely the opposite to that of an untopped engine. The simulation is described. Issues associated with integrating CFD and component level codes are discussed. Results from several transient simulations are presented and discussed.Document ID19970026604Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsGreendyke, R. B.*(Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX United States)*Paxson, D. E.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Schobeiri, M. T.*(Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1997Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107514NASA-TM-107514E-10816AIAA Paper 97-3143Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint PropulsionLocation: Seattle, WACountry: United StatesStart Date: July 6, 1997End Date: July 9, 1997Sponsors:Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Society for Electrical Engineers,American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N25853Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 523-26-33Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970026604.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
monthID zoneID hourID temperature relHumidity

7 450910 1 73.0 81.0

7 450910 2 72.0 83.0

7 450910 3 71.0 84.0

7 450910 4 71.0 86.0

7 450910 5 70.0 87.0

7 450910 6 70.0 87.0

7 450910 7 73.0 83.0

7 450910 8 75.0 77.0

7 450910 9 79.0 69.0

7 450910 10 81.0 64.0

7 450910 11 83.0 60.0

7 450910 12 85.0 55.0

7 450910 13 86.0 52.0

7 450910 14 87.0 51.0

7 450910 15 87.0 50.0

7 450910 16 87.0 51.0

7 450910 17 86.0 53.0

7 450910 18 84.0 56.0

7 450910 19 81.0 62.0

7 450910 20 79.0 67.0

7 450910 21 77.0 71.0

7 450910 22 76.0 74.0

7 450910 23 74.0 78.0

7 450910 24 74.0 79.0
### §441i. Exchanges of land

In order that exchanges of land may be effectuated for the purposes of sections 441f to 441i of this title, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion and in accordance with the provisions of sections 3111 and 3112 of title 40, to accept, on behalf of the United States, title to any land or interests in land within the exterior boundaries of the Badlands National Park as revised pursuant to sections 441f to 441i of this title, and, in exchange therefor, with the approval and concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior may patent lands of approximately equal value which were formerly set apart and reserved from the public domain within the Badlands Fall River soil conservation project, SD–LU–1. In effectuating such exchanges, in lieu of conveyances by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture may convey lands of approximately equal value within said project which have been acquired heretofore by the United States. All such exchanges shall, in all other respects, be considered as exchanges under the provisions of section 32c,1 title III, of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act [7 U.S.C. 1011(c)] and shall otherwise be in accordance with provisions of said Act [7 U.S.C. 1000 et seq.]; except that, upon acceptance of title to any lands so acquired by the United States under this section, such lands and any other lands acquired otherwise by the United States within the park boundaries shall be a part of that area. In consummating land exchanges hereunder upon an equitable basis, patents and instruments of conveyance may be issued, and property may be accepted, by the United States, subject to such reservations as may be necessary or in the public interest.

(May 7, 1952, ch. 244, §4, 66 Stat. 66; Pub. L. 95–625, title VI, §611, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3521.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, referred to in text, is act July 22, 1937, ch. 517, 50 Stat. 522, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§1000 et seq.) of Title 7, Agriculture. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1000 of Title 7 and Tables.

#### Codification

"Sections 3111 and 3112 of title 40" substituted in text for "section 355 of the Revised Statutes" on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, the first section of which enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Words "Park" and "park" substituted in text for "Monument" and "monument", respectively, pursuant to Pub. L. 95–625, §611, which is classified to section 441e–1 of this title and which redesignated Badlands National Monument as Badlands National Park.

1  So in original. Probably should be "32(c),".
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1296

HAWA DIALLO TUCKER,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-886-686)

Submitted: September 14, 2005 Decided: October 17, 2005

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Socheat Chea, SOCHEAT CHEA, P.C., Duluth, Georgia, for Petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez

Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, OFFICE OF

IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Hawa Diallo Tucker, a native and citizen of Guinea,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen immigration

proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and

find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Tucker’s motion on the alternate ground that she failed to present

clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood that

her marriage is bona fide as required by Matter of Velarde-Pacheco,

23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (B.I.A. 2002). Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
### §159e. Revision of boundary; additional acreage; authorization of appropriations

(a) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to revise the boundary of the Saratoga National Historic Park to add approximately one hundred and forty-seven acres.

(b) For the purposes of acquiring land and interest in land added to the unit referred to in subsection (a) there are authorized to be appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund such sums as may be necessary but not to exceed $74,000 for Saratoga National Historic Park.

(Pub. L. 96–199, title I, §115, Mar. 5, 1980, 94 Stat. 71.)
§ 35.152 Jails, detention and correctional facilities, and community correctional facilities. ( a ) *General.* This section applies to public entities that are responsible for the operation or management of adult and juvenile justice jails, detention and correctional facilities, and community correctional facilities, either directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with public or private entities, in whole or in part, including private correctional facilities.
( b ) *Discrimination prohibited.* ( 1 ) Public entities shall ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.
( 2 ) Public entities shall ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals. Unless it is appropriate to make an exception, a public entity— ( i ) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in inappropriate security classifications because no accessible cells or beds are available;
( ii ) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in designated medical areas unless they are actually receiving medical care or treatment;
( iii ) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed; and
( iv ) Shall not deprive inmates or detainees with disabilities of visitation with family members by placing them in distant facilities where they would not otherwise be housed.
( 3 ) Public entities shall implement reasonable policies, including physical modifications to additional cells in accordance with the 2010 Standards, so as to ensure that each inmate with a disability is housed in a cell with the accessible elements necessary to afford the inmate access to safe, appropriate housing.
[AG Order No. 3180-2010, 75 FR 56183, Sept. 15, 2010]