alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Victoria Bukofsky, Respondent, against Flushing Hospital & Dispensary et al., Appellants, and State Insurance Fund, Respondent. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

All concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

AMN Healthcare Services, Inc.: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-73482, No. 333-117695, No. 333-133227, No. 333-133305,No. 333-142187, No. 333-158523, and No. 333-161184) on Form S-8 of AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (the Company) of our reports dated March 5, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company andsubsidiaries, as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule of valuation and qualifying accounts, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31,2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

San Diego, California 

March 5, 2010
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA/USRA University advanced design programThe participation of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the NASA/USRA University Advanced Design Program for the 1988 to 1989 academic year is reviewed. The University's design project was the Logistics Resupply and Emergency Crew Return System for Space Station Freedom. Sixty-one students divided into eight groups, participated in the spring 1989 semester. A presentation prepared by three students and a graduate teaching assistant for the program's summer conference summarized the project results. Teamed with the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), the University received support in the form of remote telecon lectures, reference material, and previously acquired applications software. In addition, a graduate teaching assistant was awarded a summer 1989 internship at MSFC.Document ID19900017539Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLembeck, Michael F.*(Illinois Univ. Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States)*Prussing, John*(Illinois Univ. Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 15, 1989Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186050NASA-CR-186050Accession Number90N26855Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NASW-4435Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017539.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
# Appendix F

Sensitivity Analysis Figures

# ii 

# T

HIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



# .F-1Figure F-1. Low twin engine percent sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-2Figure F-2. High twin engine percent sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-3Figure F-3. Low run-up time sensitivitytest – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-4Figure F-4. High runup time sensitivitytest – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-5Figure F-5. Low taxi time sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-6Figure F-6. High taxi time sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-7Figure F-7. Low lead baseline sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-8Figure F-8. High lead sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-9Figure F-9. Low twin sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-10Figure F-10. High twin sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-11Figure F-11. Low runup sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-12Figure F-13. High runup sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-13Figure F-14. High taxi sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-14Figure F-15. Low lead baseline sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-15Figure F-16. High lead sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3).F-16THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40377

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE DE JESUS SANDOVAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-708-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose De Jesus Sandoval has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Sandoval has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40377 Document: 00513383913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
No. 15-40377

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40377 Document: 00513383913 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
#### George W. Hawke v. Andrew Kerr.

Filed December 21, 1904.

No. 13,647.

Review. When the verdict and judgment are such as alone could he upheld by the undisputed and indisputable evidence, the court will not examine the record for the ascertainment of alleged errors occurring at the trial.

Error to the district court for Gage county: John S. Stull, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*E. F. Warren*and *E. O. Kretsinger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hazlett & Jack, contra.*

Ames, C.

This is an action for damages for breach of an alleged oral contract by the defendant to borrow a sum of money from the jilaintiff for a term of years, and to secure the repayment of the same, with interest, by a mortgage upon lands of the defendant. The answer pleads the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds, together with a general denial. The evidence fails completely to establish the agreement set. forth in the petition, but it *849is shown, with but little if any dispute, that the defendant’s lands wore subject to sale upon existing decrees of mortgage foreclosure, and that the plaintiff agreed to purchase them at judicial sale, and hold the title in trust to convey them to the' defendant at the expiration of a specified term of years, upon being repaid the purchase l>rice and interest, and that the lands, without the fault of the defendant, who had no control over the decrees of foreclosure, were not advertised or offered for sale. The only controversy in this respect is as follows: Certain lands of the' defendant were exposed to sale under a decree against them, and he contends that they were all that were the subject of his agreement with the plaintiff, and that the latter by refusing to buy them committed a breach of the agreement himself; but the plaintiff contends that the agreement included other lands which were not offered, and that he was therefore excused from buying those that were so. Under the circumstances we do not see how this dispute is material.

There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff prosecutes this proceeding, alleging several errors as having occurred at the trial. There is a wide if not fatal variance between the contract alleged in the petition and that proved at the trial; and of the latter, which was never perfected, the defendant is not shown to have been guilty of a breach. There are a large number of alleged errors assigned in the petition in error and in the brief of counsel which we do not feel called upon to discuss because, granting them to be well assigned and to be as flagrant as it is contended that they were, they did not contribute to the establishment of the above recited facts, about which there is no real dispute, nor would their absence have disclosed a different condition of affairs. In our opinion the verdict is the only one which could have been upheld by the undisputed evidence, and we recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Letton and Oldham, CO., concur.

*850By the Court:

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                    This  schedule   contains  summary   financial   information
                    extracted from the Balance  Sheet,  Statements of Operations
                    and  Statements  of  Cash  Flows,  and is  qualified  in its
                    entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000895464
<NAME>                        Magna-Lab Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.000
<CASH>                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                            13,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   396,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    13,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,291,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          22,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,300,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      13,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    543,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (543,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (543,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (543,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.02)



</TABLE>
### §959. Trustees and receivers suable; management; State laws

(a) Trustees, receivers or managers of any property, including debtors in possession, may be sued, without leave of the court appointing them, with respect to any of their acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with such property. Such actions shall be subject to the general equity power of such court so far as the same may be necessary to the ends of justice, but this shall not deprive a litigant of his right to trial by jury.

(b) Except as provided in section 1166 of title 11, a trustee, receiver or manager appointed in any cause pending in any court of the United States, including a debtor in possession, shall manage and operate the property in his possession as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated, in the same manner that the owner or possessor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 926; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §235, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2667.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§124, 125 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§65, 66, 36 Stat. 1104).

Section consolidates part of section 124 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with section 125 of the same title. The criminal penalty for violation of said section 124 is incorporated in section 1911 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section was extended and made applicable to trustees and debtors in possession. The provision at the end of subsection (a) for preserving the right to a jury trial was added to clarify the intent of section 125 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., as construed in Vany v. Receiver of Toledo, St. L. and K.C. R.R. Co., C.C. 1895, 67 F. 379.

Changes in phraseology were made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–598 substituted "Except as provided in section 1166 of title 11, a trustee" for "A trustee".

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 402(c) of Pub. L. 95–598, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.
### §1030a. Eliminating unnecessary plan requirements related to unenrolled participants

#### (a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, with respect to any individual account plan, no disclosure, notice, or other plan document (other than the notices and documents described in paragraphs (1) and (2)) shall be required to be furnished under this subchapter to any unenrolled participant if the unenrolled participant is furnished—

(1) an annual reminder notice of such participant's eligibility to participate in such plan and any applicable election deadlines under the plan; and

(2) any document requested by such participant that the participant would be entitled to receive notwithstanding this section.

#### (b) Unenrolled participant

For purposes of this section, the term "unenrolled participant" means an employee who—

(1) is eligible to participate in an individual account plan;

(2) has been furnished—

(A) the summary plan description pursuant to section 1024(b) of this title, and

(B) any other notices related to eligibility under the plan required to be furnished under this subchapter, or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in connection with such participant's initial eligibility to participate in such plan;

(3) is not participating in such plan; and

(4) satisfies such other criteria as the Secretary of Labor may determine appropriate, as prescribed in guidance issued in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury.

For purposes of this section, any eligibility to participate in the plan following any period for which such employee was not eligible to participate shall be treated as initial eligibility.

#### (c) Annual reminder notice

For purposes of this section, the term "annual reminder notice" means a notice provided in accordance with section 2520.104b–1 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), which—

(1) is furnished in connection with the annual open season election period with respect to the plan or, if there is no such period, is furnished within a reasonable period prior to the beginning of each plan year;

(2) notifies the unenrolled participant of—

(A) the unenrolled participant's eligibility to participate in the plan; and

(B) the key benefits and rights under the plan, with a focus on employer contributions and vesting provisions; and

(3) provides such information in a prominent manner calculated to be understood by the average participant.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §111, as added Pub. L. 117–328, div. T, title III, §320(a)(1), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5354.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(B), is classified generally to Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 111 of Pub. L. 93–406 was renumbered section 112 and is classified to section 1031 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2022, see section 320(c) of Pub. L. 117–328, set out as an Effective Date of 2022 Amendment note under section 414 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed February 20, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00898-CV

____________

GARY NEUS, LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE OF THE TRANSMERIDIAN 

EXPLORATION LIQUIDATING TRUST, Appellant

V.

DINGO DRILLING, INC. AND MIKE HUSSER, INDIVIDUALLY AND

D/B/A OILFIELD TOOLS.NET, Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-68079

ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 18, 2014, the parties notified this court that they had reached an 

agreement to settle the issues on appeal, and they requested that the briefing 

schedule be extended to allow them to complete the terms of the settlement. The 

motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order.
The appeal is ABATED, treated as a closed case, and removed from this 

court’s active docket until March 21, 2014. The appeal will be reinstated on this 

court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the 

appeal or other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate 

motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the 

appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit
        32.2





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 amended annual report of Fellows Energy Ltd. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George
        S. Young, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
        U.S.C.
        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 and 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.





A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Fellows Energy Ltd. and will be retained by Fellows Energy Ltd. and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







Date:
                  February 02, 2006
              By:*/s/ GEORGE S. YOUNG*George
                  S. YoungChief
                  Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-61361-civ-Valle

[Consent Case]

JOHNNY MAX OXYDE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STAR PUPS, INC., 

DANIEL RUIZ, 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, JOHNNY MAX OXYDE, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby 

notifies the Court that the parties have reached a settlement and are in the process of finalizing the 

written settlement agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

Koz Law, P.A.

320 S.E. 9th Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Phone: (786) 924-9929

Fax: (786) 358-6071

Email: ekoz@kozlawfirm.com

Elliot Kozolchyk, Esq.

Bar No.: 74791

Case 0:20-cv-61361-AOV Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed 

on December 9, 2020 with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF along with having served all counsel 

of record or pro se parties identified on the service list incorporated herein in the manner specified, 

either via transmission of Electronic filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized 

manner for those counsel or parties not authorized to receive electronically Notice of Electronic 

Filing.

Elliot Kozolchyk, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

Nolan Klein, Esq.

Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.

5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Email: ramirez@nklegal.com, klein@nklegal.com, amy@nklegal.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 0:20-cv-61361-AOV Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 2 of 2
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 25, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00750

- CR

Larry CASTRO

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0307A Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

After Megan V. Cook was appointed to represent appellant on appeal, we ordered appellant’s brief due March 10, 2014. We subsequently granted an extension of time to file the

brief until April 10, 2014. Appellant has filed another motion for extension of time, requesting

until May 10 to file the brief.

We grant the motion in part and order appellant’s attorney to file the brief by May 9,

2014 (60 days after the originally due date). Counsel is advised that no fur ther extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assu rance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 25th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Isaac Shapiro, Respondent, v. Morris Danzig, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and-Van Voorhis, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 763.]
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee under a Trust Agreement Made by Elizabeth B. von der Decken, Now Deceased, Respondent. Tom C. Clark, Attorney General of the United States, as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, Appellant; Alfred W. Bergren, as Guardian ad Litem of Dagmar von der Decken and Another, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See *post,*p. 921.]