alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            1117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19663
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       5005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   253
<PP&E>                                            3172
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1445)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         07
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27977
<SALES>                                          90745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 90745
<CGS>                                            77850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    77850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 10412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1803
<INCOME-TAX>                                       701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        


</TABLE>
§ 1502.10 Denial of hearing in whole or in part. ( a ) If the Commission determines upon review of the objections or requests for hearing that a hearing is not justified, in whole or in part, a notice of the determination will be published in the Federal Register.
( b ) The notice will state whether the hearing is denied in whole or in part. If the hearing is denied in part, the notice will be combined with the notice of hearing required by § 1502.13, and will specify the objections and requests for hearing that have been granted and denied.
( c ) Any denial will be explained. A denial based on an analysis of the information submitted to justify a hearing will explain the inadequacy of the information.
( d ) The notice will confirm, modify, or stay the effective date of the regulation involved.
( e ) The record of the administrative proceeding relating to denial in whole or in part of a public hearing on an objection or request for hearing consists of the following: ( 1 ) The entire rulemaking record;
( 2 ) The objections and requests for hearing filed by the Office of the Secretary; and
( 3 ) The notice denying a formal evidentiary public hearing.
( f ) The record specified in paragraph (e) of this section is the exclusive record for the Commission's decision on the complete or partial denial of a hearing. The record of the proceeding will be closed as of the date of the Commission's decision denying a hearing, unless another date is specified. A person who requested and was denied a hearing may submit a petition for reconsideration or a petition for stay of the Commission's action. A person who wishes to rely upon information or views not included in the administrative record shall submit them to the Commission with a petition to modify the final regulation.
( g ) Denial of a request for a hearing in whole or in part is final agency action reviewable in the courts, under the statutory provisions governing the matter involved, as of the date of publication of the denial in the Federal Register. ( 1 ) Before requesting a court for a stay of the Commission's action pending judicial review, a person shall first submit a petition to the Commission for a stay of action.
( 2 ) The time for filing a petition for judicial review of a denial of a hearing on an objection or issue begins on the date the denial is published in the Federal Register. The failure to file a petition for judicial review within the period established in the statutory provision governing the matter involved constitutes a waiver of the right to judicial review of the objection or issue, regardless whether a hearing has been granted on other objections and issues.
Gibbons

Saitta J.

J. Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted, and an appeal is typically considered an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. See NRAP 21(b); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 (stating that the issuance of an extraordinary writ is purely discretionary with this court). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division Anthony Haugabook Lisa Anne Haugabook Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00728-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JUANA CAMPOS GUERRERO, Deceased

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-029-PR

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 22, 2010

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court signed an appealable order on June 1, 2010. Appellant filed a timely 

motion for new trial on June 29, 2010. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed 

August 30, 2010. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice 

of appeal was due on September 14, 2010. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of 

appeal on October 13, 2010. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once 
04-10-00728-CV

- 2 -

the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can 

no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Id. 

Because it appeared that the notice of appeal was untimely filed, we ordered appellant to 

show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appellant did not respond to our order. Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, this 

appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
(a)  A review of Cellco
        Partnership’s activities and of its performance under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 8, 2019, as amended (the “Transfer and Servicing Agreement”), among Verizon ABS LLC, as depositor, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
        Wireless, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), marketing agent and custodian, and Verizon Owner Trust 2019-C, as issuer, during the period from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 has been made under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the best of my
        knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
 
  
 By:
          /s/ Kee Chan SinKee Chan SinVice President and Assistant TreasurerCellco Partnership, as Servicer of VerizonOwner Trust 2019-C
§ 302.105 Priorities for unsecured claims against a covered broker or dealer. Allowed claims not satisfied pursuant to § 302.103(d), including allowed claims for net equity to the extent not satisfied after final allocation of customer property in accordance with § 302.104(a)(3), shall be paid in accordance with the order of priority set forth in 12 CFR 380.21 subject to the following adjustments: ( a ) Administrative expenses of SIPC incurred in performing its responsibilities as trustee for a covered broker or dealer shall be included as administrative expenses of the receiver as defined in 12 CFR 380.22 and shall be paid *pro rata* with such expenses in accordance with 12 CFR 380.21(c).
( b ) Amounts paid by the Corporation to customers or SIPC shall be included as amounts owed to the United States as defined in 12 CFR 380.23 and shall be paid *pro rata* with such amounts in accordance with 12 CFR 380.21(c).
( c ) Amounts advanced by SIPC for the purpose of satisfying customer claims for net equity shall be paid following the payment of all amounts owed to the United States pursuant to 12 CFR 380.21(a)(3) but prior to the payment of any other class or priority of claims described in 12 CFR 380.21(a)(4) through (11).
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, James W. Creamer, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed the report being filed on Form 10-QSB by ACROSS AMERICA REAL
ESTATE CORP;

2. Based on my knowledge, the 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 the report;

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

4. I and the other certifying officer are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in
Regulation 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for ACROSS AMERICA
REAL ESTATE CORP and have:

     i. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared;

     ii. Evaluated the effectiveness of ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP.'s
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of the report ("Evaluation Date"); and

     iii. Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. I and the other certifying officer have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP. auditors and the audit
committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

     i. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP.'s ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP.'s auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and

     ii. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and

6. I and the other certifying officer have indicated in the report whether or
not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: 8/12/05
                                                    /s/ James W. Creamer, III
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    James W. Creamer, III,
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Eleanor L. Fletcher, Respondent, v. James H. Van Alen, Appellant.

No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 50902 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Everardo Joe Flores -**  **Salcido,** Defendant
— Appellant **, consolidated with** 

**_____________** No. 22 - 50903

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Everado Flores -**  **Salcido,** De fendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 4, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50902 Document: 00516738924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/20232 USDC Nos. 4:19 - CR - 186 - 1, 4:22 - CR - 343 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Everado Joe Flores - Salcido’s appeal of the six - month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation from the United States has been consolidated with his appeal of the judgment revoking the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Because his appellate brief does not address the revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that judgment. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224 - 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Flores - Salcido challenges the district court’s application of the enhanced penalty range in § 1326(b) as unconstitutional because it permits a defendant to be sentenced above the statutory maximum of § 1326(a) based on the fact of a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He raises the issue to preserve it for further review and has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition, correctly conceding that it is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. Unit ed States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Flores - Salcido’s motion is **GRANTED** , a nd the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED** .

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. Case: 22-50902 Document: 00516738924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Filter ResultsTitleAuthorAuthorOrganizationOrganizationPublication DateremoveDate AcquiredremoveTypeTypeCenterSubject CategorySubject CategoryReport NumbersReport NumbersFunding NumbersFunding NumbersKeywordsKeywordsClearApplymenuClear FilterExportBest MatchBest MatchItems per page:251 – 25 of 652115Collections**PubSpace**Top ResultsSource**595564**STI Collection**31669**JPL**24882**CHORUSpublished**17590**1992**17528**1993**16002**1991**14955**1990**14262**1994author**685**Russell, C. T.**658**Crisp, David**528**Bar-Cohen, Y.**492**Baker, D. N.**461**Smith, E. J.Type**148917**Conference Paper**123401**Reprint (Version printed in journal)**71803**Contractor Report (CR)**64607**Other**39488**Presentationcenter**383845**CDMS**41397**JPL**39505**GSFC**24479**LaRC**21898**MSFCsubject Category**27302**Geophysics**23486**Astrophysics**20363**Earth Resources And Remote Sensing**17264**Aerodynamics**16100**Meteorology And Climatologykeyword**5207**Non-NASA Center**1029**NASA Discipline Exobiology**915**Mars**830**Review**754**NASA Discipline Plant Biologydistribution**652115**Public
 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
### §242q–5. Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out sections 242q to 242q–5 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1991 through 1993.

(Pub. L. 101–557, title III, §305, formerly §306, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2770; renumbered §305, Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §104(b)(3)(B), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3694.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Home Health Care and Alzheimer's Disease Amendments of 1990, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 305 of Pub. L. 101–557 was renumbered section 304 and is classified to section 242q–4 of this title.
Opinion issued April 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00203-CV

———————————

CINDY THOMPSON, CHARLES THOMPSON, 

AND CC & T INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellants

V.

MAE LANDRY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 344th District Court

Chambers County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 18DCV0421

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cindy Thompson, Charles Thompson, and CC & T Investments, LLC, have 

filed a petition for permissive appeal, seeking to challenge the trial court's 

interlocutory order denying their motion for summary judgment. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 28.3; TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d). We deny the petition for 
2

permissive appeal and dismiss the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any 

pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Landau.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4477]

[[Page 11533]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9637-6]

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010; 
Notice of Availability and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of document availability and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 
Sinks: 1990-2010 is available for public review. Annual U.S. emissions 
for the period of time from 1990 through 2010 are summarized and 
presented by source category and sector. The inventory contains 
estimates of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), 
perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 
emissions. The inventory also includes estimates of carbon fluxes in 
U.S. agricultural and forest lands. The technical approach used in this 
report to estimate emissions and sinks for greenhouse gases is 
consistent with the methodologies recommended by the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported in a format consistent 
with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
reporting guidelines. The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
and Sinks: 1990-2010 is the latest in a series of annual U.S. 
submissions to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC.

DATES: To ensure your comments are considered for the final version of 
the document, please submit your comments on or before March 28, 2012. 
However, comments received after that date will still be welcomed and 
be considered for the next edition of this report.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Mr. Leif Hockstad at: 
Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division (6207J), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Fax: (202) 343-2359. You 
are welcome and encouraged to send an email with your comments to 
hockstad.leif@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Leif Hockstad, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric 
Programs, Climate Change Division, (202) 343-9432, 
hockstad.leif@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft report can be obtained by visiting 
the U.S. EPA's Climate Change Site at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

    Dated: February 16, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2012-4477 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
§ 1304.7 Responses to requests. ( a ) *General information.* MCC, to the extent practicable, will communicate with requesters who have access to the internet via email or web portal.
( b ) *Acknowledgment of requests.* MCC shall acknowledge the request in writing and assign a tracking number for processing purposes.
( c ) *Estimated dates of completion and interim responses.* Upon request, MCC shall provide an estimated response date. If a request involves a voluminous amount of material or searches in multiple locations, MCC shall provide interim responses by releasing the records on a rolling basis.
( d ) *Granting requests.* MCC will notify the requestor in writing if it determines that it will grant a request in full or in part. MCC shall inform the requester of any fees charged and shall disclose the requested records to the requester promptly upon payment of any applicable fees.
( e ) *Partial grant of requests.* MCC shall consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever the agency determines that a full disclosure of a requested record is not possible. MCC shall take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information.
( f ) *Denial or adverse determination of requests.* Except as otherwise provided in this part, MCC shall withhold information only if— ( 1 ) It reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption under the FOIA or disclosure is prohibited by law;
( 2 ) The request does not reasonably describe the records sought;
( 3 ) The information sought is not a record subject to the FOIA;
( 4 ) The information sought does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or
( 5 ) The records are not in the readily producible form or format sought by the requester.
( g ) *Markings on released documents.* Records disclosed in part shall be marked clearly to show the amount of information deleted and the exemption under which the deletion was made unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption.