alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued August 26, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00362-CV

———————————

JEFF QUAN, KA YAN LEE, HARMONY QUAN, MEGA TIME II, LLC, 

MELODY QUAN GALLAGHER, LAWRENCE LEE, CAPITAL PLASTICS 

INT’L, INC., AND ELEMENT PLASTICS MFG., LLC, Appellants

V.

WENDY QUAN AND BRENDA UNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF CAPITAL PLASTICS INT’L, INC., 

ELEMENT PLASTICS MFG., LLC, AND CASH 10702 INVESTMENT 

LLC, AND PING CHU AND ANDY CHEN, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF 

OF CAPITAL PLASTICS INT’L, INC., ELEMENT PLASTICS MFG., LLC, 

AND CASH 10702 INVESTMENT LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 20-DCV-271902

MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

Appellants, Jeff Quan, Ka Yan Lee, Harmony Quan, Mega Time II, LLC, 

Melody Quan Gallagher, and Lawrence Lee, filed a notice of appeal from five

interlocutory orders of the trial court, including: (1) a June 4, 2021 “Temporary 

Injunction Order,” (2) a June 16, 2021 “First Amended Temporary Injunction 

Order,” (3) a June 28, 2021 “Third Amended Order Granting Appointment of a 

Rehabilitative Receiver of Cash 10702 Investment, LLC,” (4) a June 28, 2021 

“Fourth Amended Order Granting Appointment of a Rehabilitative Receiver of 

Capital Plastics Int’l, Inc. and Element Plastics MFG., LLC,” and (5) a June 28, 2021 

“First Amended Order Denying [Appellants’] Motion to Reconsider.” Appellants, 

Capital Plastics Int’l, Inc. and Element Plastics Mfg., LLC, separately filed a notice 

of appeal from the same interlocutory orders.

Collectively, appellants have filed an “Agreed Motion to Dismiss,”

representing that “[a]ll the parties to this interlocutory appeal and to the underlying 

trial court action reached a settlement,” which had the effect of “dissolv[ing] all of 

the interlocutory orders that were being appealed in this case.” Accordingly, “there 

are no longer any issues in controversy between the parties to this appeal,” and 

appellants seek dismissal of the appeal. 

No other party has filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Further, appellants’ motion includes a certificate of 
3

conference representing that appellees do not oppose the relief requested in 

appellants’ motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Farris.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 358

 393

 351

 428

 310

 320

 300

 358

 416

 362

 490

 450

 474

 469

 459

 451

 446

 413

 475

 430

 409

 443

 412

 417

 466

 580

 585

 0

 0

 0

 0

 235

 248

 246

 233

 231

 226

 216

 220

 223

 221

 228

 234

 236

 243

 243

 257

 253

 285

 299

 284

 286

 296

 327

 341

 417

 466

 518

 0

 0

 0

 0

 266

 269

 266

 272

 259

 257

 247

 249

 264

 256

 281

 290

 290

 307

 299

 313

 323

 327

 344

 336

 328

 344

 367

 376

 436

 515

 561

 0

 0

 0

 0

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:September 6, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 180

 182

 180

 184

 176

 175

 169

 170

 179

 174

 190

 195

 195

 206

 201

 209

 216

 218

 229

 224

 219

 229

 243

 248

 285

 334

 363

 0

 0

 0

 0

TOTAL 8,642

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
Response to H-4:

Clarify and provide additional details on how the SNF came to 2,130 acres of pre-commercial thinning 

and enhance the planning record with further explanations regarding affected species such as 

lodgepole pine, thinning in wildland urban interface to reduce the basal area of the stand to reduce 

risk of wildfire.

The Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment to the Shoshone National Forest plan in 2007 (Lynx 

Amendment) identified a limited range of fuel or timber management projects and limited 

precommercial thinning projects for resource benefits all conducted within the Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI). These projects are exempted from vegetation standards VEG S1, S2, S5 and S6 listed in the Lynx 

Amendment.

During the amendment process, the SNF requested the exemption on an additional 2,130 acres where 

pre-commercial thinning would be allowed in lodgepole pine stands for timber purposes. The 2,130 

acres were not included in the Lynx Amendment preferred alternative.

As part of the forest plan revision process the continued need for these 2,130 acres of precommercial 

thinning in lynx habitat was identified and these acres were included in the preferred alternative for the 

revised plan. Therefore Section 7 consultation and the resulting biological opinion covered precommercial thinning on 2,130 acres in lodgepole pine in lynx habitat within the WUI for purposes other 

than fuels reduction. These acres are not in addition to the 6% limit of 35,820 acres. 

For clarification, a footnote was added to the LMP, Appendix 1, VEG S5 and a paragraph to Vegetation, 

Management approach, stating, “Management of lodgepole pine includes precommerical thinning of up 

to 2,130 acres in lynx habitat within the Wildland Urban Interface, under projects not designed for fuels 

reduction as an objective.”

Where the SNF is able to pre-commercially thin, the growth of lodgepole pine will accelerate compared 

to un-thinned stands resulting in a shorter rotation age, increased volume, and better quality timber. 

Thinning stands in the WUI also reduces the risk of catastrophic fire. However, the SNF has limited 

funding for pre-commercial thinning and how much of the 2,130 acres are actually thinned in the next 

decade will depend on future funding levels.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 072

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
### §3042. Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Section 3041 of this title shall apply in any country where the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction for the arrest and removal therefrom to the United States of any citizen or national of the United States who is a fugitive from justice charged with or convicted of the commission of any offense against the United States, and shall also apply throughout the United States for the arrest and removal therefrom to the jurisdiction of any officer or representative of the United States vested with judicial authority in any country in which the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction, of any citizen or national of the United States who is a fugitive from justice charged with or convicted of the commission of any offense against the United States in any country where it exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Such fugitive first mentioned may, by any officer or representative of the United States vested with judicial authority in any country in which the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction and agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders subject to such jurisdiction, be arrested and detained or conditionally released pursuant to section 3142 of this title, as the case may be, pending the issuance of a warrant for his removal, which warrant the principal officer or representative of the United States vested with judicial authority in the country where the fugitive shall be found shall seasonably issue, and the United States marshal or corresponding officer shall execute.

Such marshal or other officer, or the deputies of such marshal or officer, when engaged in executing such warrant without the jurisdiction of the court to which they are attached, shall have all the powers of a marshal of the United States so far as such powers are requisite for the prisoner's safekeeping and the execution of the warrant.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 815; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §204(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1985.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §662b (Mar. 22, 1934, ch. 73, §1, 48 Stat. 454).

Words "crime or" before "offense" were omitted as unnecessary.

Words "and the Philippine Islands" were deleted in two places as obsolete in view of the independence of the Commonwealth of the Philippines effective July 4, 1946.

Words "its Territories, Districts, or possessions, including the Panama Canal Zone or any other territory governed, occupied, or controlled by it" were omitted as covered by section 5 of this title defining the term "United States".

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–473 substituted "detained or conditionally released pursuant to section 3142 of this title" for "imprisoned or admitted to bail".
Appendix D 

Air Quality Calculations 
Formulas and Assumptions for Calculation of 

Dust Particle Emissions during Project Operation 

To estimate the amount of dust generated from the traffic during the Operation phase of the 

Project, calculations using EPA Emission Factors for unpaved and paved roads were made. 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I (EPA, 2006) contains the following 

equation for light-duty vehicles traveling on publicly accessible unpaved roads (Equation 1b in 

the document): 

where k, a, c and d are empirical constants provided in the document and: 

x E = size-specific emission factor in pounds per vehicle mile traveled (lb/VMT), 

x s = surface material silt content (percent), 

x M = surface material moisture content (percent), 

x S = mean vehicle speed (mph), and 

x C = emission factor for 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear. 

To account for rainfall, which naturally mitigates dust generation, the following equation was 

then applied: 

Eext = E [(365-P)/365] 

where: 

x Eext = annual size-specific emission factor extrapolated for natural mitigation (lb/VMT); 

x E = emission factor from Equation above; and 

x P = number of days in a year with at least 0.01 inches (0.254 millimeters) of 

precipitation. 

Lost Creek In Situ Recovery Draft EIS Appendix D D-1
For paved roads, the following formula was used: 

where: 

x Eext = annual or other long-term average emission factor in the same units as k; 

x k = particle size multiplier for particle size range and units of interest; 

x sL = road surface silt loading (grams per square meter [g/m2]);

x W = average weight (tons) of the vehicles traveling the road; 

x C = emission factor for 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear; 

x P = number of “wet” days with at least 0.01 inches (0.254 millimeters) of precipitation 

during the averaging period; and 

x N = number of days in the averaging period (e.g., 365 for annual, 91 for seasonal, 30 for 

monthly). 

For purposes of the above calculations, the following estimates and assumptions were made: 

x Weight for passenger vehicles used by employees is two tons; average weight (full versus 

empty) for supply/delivery truck is ten tons; and average weight of resin truck (full versus 

empty) is 20 tons; 

x Distance of unpaved roads is equal to 19 miles; speed limit of passenger vehicles is 35 

mph and delivery and resin trucks are 15 mph; 

x Resin trucks make 70 trips a year; delivery trucks make weekly trips (52 a year); 

x For employees, it was assumed that 70 percent would be commuting from Casper, and 30 

percent from Rawlins; 87 employees would carpool in 33 vehicles, driving 240 days each 

year (the number of work days, taking holidays and vacations into account); 

x Emissions were calculated for the Operation phase only. 

Lost Creek In Situ Recovery Draft EIS Appendix D D-2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 346

 335

 336

 473

 471

 441

 451

 469

 538

 470

 425

 402

 389

 365

 379

 361

 377

 376

 374

 411

 470

 427

 491

 460

 526

 522

 469

 530

 510

 507

 527

 226

 217

 219

 204

 260

 268

 266

 265

 271

 269

 272

 287

 290

 296

 303

 308

 312

 340

 349

 360

 395

 384

 422

 419

 440

 427

 450

 438

 452

 462

 488

 283

 263

 264

 316

 351

 351

 360

 357

 391

 347

 332

 329

 323

 320

 328

 331

 342

 355

 361

 383

 427

 403

 449

 438

 468

 457

 458

 486

 481

 486

 503

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 191

 179

 179

 211

 233

 233

 238

 237

 258

 230

 221

 219

 216

 214

 219

 221

 227

 235

 239

 253

 280

 265

 293

 287

 305

 298

 299

 316

 313

 316

 327

TOTAL 11,743

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
§ 646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make? ( a ) The Secretary evaluates an application for a new grant as follows: ( 1 ) ( i ) The Secretary evaluates the application on the basis of the selection criteria in § 646.21.
( ii ) The maximum score for all the criteria in § 646.21 is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses with the criterion.
( 2 ) ( i ) If an application for a new grant proposes to continue to serve substantially the same population and campus that the applicant is serving under an expiring grant, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's prior experience of high quality service delivery under the expiring grant on the basis of the outcome criteria in § 646.22.
( ii ) The maximum total score for all the criteria in § 646.22 is 15 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses with the criterion.
( iii ) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published application materials for the competition.
( iv ) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the designated project years for which annual performance report data are available.
( v ) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three project years assessed.
( b ) The Secretary makes new grants in rank order on the basis of the applications' total scores under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
( c ) If the total scores of two or more applications are the same and there is insufficient money available to fully fund them both after funding the higher-ranked applications, the Secretary chooses among the tied applications so as to serve geographic areas that have been underserved by the Student Support Services Program.
( d ) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
[61 FR 38537, July 24, 1996, as amended at 75 FR 65791, Oct. 26, 2010]
EXHIBIT
      32.2


CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
      OFFICER PURSUANT TO18
      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 Aztec Oil & Gas, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2007 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”). I, Larry A. Hornbrook, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.




Date: January
                2, 2008
            By:
                /s/ Larry A. HornbrookName:
                Larry A. HornbrookTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer




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.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 569

 432

 491

 508

 470

 501

 532

 530

 541

 598

 637

 605

 558

 543

 514

 603

 539

 493

 492

 540

 532

 537

 534

 536

 694

 758

 673

 681

 642

 610

 612

 277

 294

 284

 299

 331

 347

 336

 337

 333

 326

 330

 336

 345

 350

 352

 351

 355

 367

 381

 407

 387

 378

 382

 391

 378

 393

 419

 454

 465

 501

 494

 346

 341

 356

 367

 377

 404

 399

 399

 397

 410

 411

 414

 426

 424

 431

 445

 440

 437

 444

 460

 456

 467

 468

 457

 481

 500

 516

 543

 559

 573

 571

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:September 11, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 230

 227

 236

 243

 249

 266

 263

 263

 261

 269

 270

 272

 279

 278

 282

 291

 288

 286

 290

 300

 298

 305

 305

 298

 313

 325

 335

 352

 361

 370

 369

TOTAL 13,719

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
### No. 13284 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 

### STATE OF MONTANA 1977

JOSEPH E. LAFOREST, Plaintiff and Appellant,

RONALD LELAND AND COMPANY and E. 

### K. WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District Honorable Arnold H. Olsen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gregory J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: 

### Greenwood and Petaja, Helena, Montana Nicholas C. Jacques argued, Helena, Montana
Submitted: January 11, 1977 ~ecided:

# JAN201977Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. This isan action for damages resulting from an alleged failure of defendants toprocure worker's compensation coverage for the operation of plaintiff's service stationinButte, Silver Bow County, Montana. From an order of thedistrict court, Silver Bow County, transferringvenue tothe district court, Lewis and Clark County, Montana, plaintiff appeals. The complaint alleges that inFebruary, 1972, defendant Roland LeLand and Company entered into an oral contract with plaintiff toprocure worker's compensation coverage for the operation of plaintiff's service station inButte, Silver Bow County, Montana. The complaint alleges both breach of contract and negligence by defendant infailing toprocure the coverage. Plaintiff was subsequently injured inan industrial accident. The complaint seeks damages inthe amount of workmen's compensation benefits towhich plaintiff would have been entitled had coverage been procured. The place of performance was not expressed inthe oral contract. A dispute exists concerning whether the place of contracting 

### was inButte, Silver Bow County, orHelena, Lewis and Clark County. Plaintiff resides and operates his service station inButte, Silver Bow County. The principal place of business of defendant Roland LeLand and Company is inHelena, Lewis and Clark County, and 

### itspresident Roland LeLand resides there. Wehold that the place of performance of the contract controls venue inthiscase. Section 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947. Absent the underlying contract, there is no negligence, no claim for relief, and no lawsuit. The gravamen of the complaint is failure toprocure the coverage 

### as agreed. By necessary implication, the coverage was tobe procured by defendant atitsplace of

### business in Lewis and Clark County. The place of performance exception applies to contractswhere the place of performance is indicated by necessary implication. McGregor 

### v. Svare, 151 Mont. 520, 

### 445 P.2d 571 and cases cited therein. Judgment affirmed.

Justice We concuj?:

Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in this case.
§ 690.66 Correspondence study. ( a ) An institution calculates the Federal Pell Grant for a payment period for a student in a program of study offered by correspondence courses without terms, but not including any residential component, by— ( 1 ) Determining the student's annual award using the half-time Disbursement Schedule; and
( 2 ) Multiplying the annual award determined from the Disbursement Schedule for a half-time student by the lesser of— ( i ) or
( ii )
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) The institution shall make the first payment to a student for an academic year, as calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, after the student submits 25 percent of the lessons or otherwise completes 25 percent of the work scheduled for the program or the academic year, whichever occurs last; and
( 2 ) The institution shall make the second payment to a student for an academic year, as calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, after the student submits 75 percent of the lessons or otherwise completes 75 percent of the work scheduled for the program or the academic year, whichever occurs last.
( c ) In a program of correspondence study offered by correspondence courses using terms but not including any residential component— ( 1 ) The institution must prepare a written schedule for submission of lessons that reflects a workload of at least 30 hours of preparation per semester hour or 20 hours of preparation per quarter hour during the term;
( 2 ) ( i ) If the student is enrolled in at least 6 credit hours that commence and are completed in that term, the Disbursement Schedule for a half-time student is used to calculate the payment for the payment period; or
( ii ) If the student is enrolled in less than 6 credit hours that commence and are completed in that term the Disbursement Schedule for a less-than-half-time student is used to calculate the payment for the payment period;
( 3 ) A payment for a payment period is calculated using the formula in § 690.63(d) except that paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section are used in lieu of § 690.63(d) (1) and (2) respectively; and
( 4 ) The institution shall make the payment to a student for a payment period after that student completes 50 percent of the lessons or otherwise completes 50 percent of the work scheduled for the term, whichever occurs last.
( d ) Payments for periods of residential training shall be calculated under § 690.63(d) if the residential training is offered using terms and credit hours or § 690.63(e) if the residential training is offered using credit hours without terms.
[59 FR 54734, Nov. 1, 1994, as amended at 72 FR 62033, Nov. 1, 2007; 74 FR 20221, May 1, 2009]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro Gatelle, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.