alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00548-CV

M&M Orthodontics, P.A., and Harlingen Family Dentistry, Appellants

v.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Dr. Kyle Janek, in his Official Capacity

as the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission;

Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human

Services Commission; Judge Keith Grantham of the Appeals Division Texas Health

and Human Services Commission; and Rick Gilpin, Administrative Law Judge of the

Appeals Division Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-14-001109, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellees Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Dr. Kyle Janek, in his

Official Capacityas the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health andHuman ServicesCommission;

Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human Services

Commission; Judge Keith Grantham of the Appeals Division Texas Health and Human Services

Commission; and Rick Gilpin, Administrative Law Judge of the Appeals Division Texas Health and

Human Services Commission have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. The appellees

have advised the Court that the underlying administrative actions that were pending against

appellant M&M Orthodontics and appellant Harlingen Family Dentistry in the HHSC Appeals
Division have been nonsuited and dismissed, rendering moot the issues raised by appellants in

their appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

We conclude, based on our review of the appellees’ motion and the record, that the

appeal has become moot. “If a case is or becomes moot, the court must vacate any order or

judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.” Heckman v. Williamson

Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment signed

on August 7, 2014, and dismiss this appeal as moot. We also dismiss all other pending motions

as moot.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Vacated and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 30, 2015

2
## DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – SO 2 

## Material Balance Calculation

Permit Condition for Air Quality Permits Adopted by Reference in 18 AAC 50.346

April 1, 2002

REVISED August 25, 2004Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – SO 2 Material Balance Calculation 1 April 1, 2002 Revised August 25, 2004 

## Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – SO 2 

## Material Balance Calculation

Emission Unit [SOURCE] or Stationa ry Source [FACILITY] Categories This Condition Applies to: Any fuel burning equipment using liquid fuel.

The department will use standard permit c ondition XII in any operating permit unless the department determines that emission unit [SOURCE] or stationary source [FACILITY] specific conditions more adequately m eet the requirements of 18 AAC 50.

Permit Wording:

SO 2

Material Balance Calculation If a fuel shipment contains more than 0.75 pe rcent sulfur by weight, calculate the three-hour exhaust concentration of SO 2 using the following equations:



### A = 31,200 

### x [ wt%S fuel ] = 31,200 

### x ______ = ______ B = 0.148 

### x [ wt%S fuel ] = 0.148 

### x ______ = ______ C = 0.396 

### x [ wt%C fuel ] = 0.396 

### x ______ = ______ D = 0.933 

### x [ wt%H fuel ] = 0.933 

### x ______ = ______ E = B + C + D = ______ + ______ + ______ = ______

F = 20.9 

### – [ vol% dry O 2, exhaust 

### ] = 20.9 

### - ______ = ______ G = [ vol% dry O 2, exhaust 

### ] ÷ F = ______ ÷ ______ = ______ H = 1 + G = 1 + ______ = ______

I = E x H = ______ x ______ = ______

SO 2 concentration 

### = A ÷ I = ______ ÷ ______ = ______ PPM

The wt%S fuel , wt%C fuel , and wt%H fuel are equal to the weight percents of sulfur, carbon, and hydrogen in the fuel. Thes e percentages should total 100%.

The fuel weight percent (wt%) of sulfur is obtained pursuant to condition XI.2. The fuel weight percents of carbon and hydrogen ar e obtained from the fuel refiner.

The volume percent of oxygen in the exhaust ( vol% dry O 2, exhaust ) is obtained from oxygen meters, manufacturer’s data, or from the most recent analysis under 40 C.F.R. 60, Appendix A-2, Method 3, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040(a), at the same engine load used in the calculation.Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – SO 2 Material Balance Calculation 2 April 1, 2002 Revised August 25, 2004 Enter all of the data in percentages wi thout dividing the percentages by 100. For example, if wt%S fuel = 1.0%, then enter 1.0 into the equations, not 0.01, and if vol% dry O 2, exhaust = 3.00%, then enter 3.00, not 0.03.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 23
- 30808 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff
— Appellee , versus Adrienne Gale Thomas, Defendant
— Appellant .

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:23
- CR
- 41 - 1

_______________ _______________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam : * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adrienne Gale Thomas 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). Thomas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the rele vant portions of the record reflected therein. We

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir . R . 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 10, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-30808 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2024No. 23
- 30808

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsi bilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2 . Case: 23-30808 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2024
NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

TODAY' S DATE: 

MEMO 

Norwood Airport Commission 

Russ Maguire 

Gate 3 TOFA, Fueling Setbacks 

June 17, 2013 

Specific to the gate 3 taxi-lane, and Boston Executive Helicopters' plans to construct a fuel fann 

in the vicinity of gate 3, the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) has held discussions already 1 

on two applicable issues. These include: 1) aircraft fueling setbacks; and 2) the taxi-lane objectfree area (TOF A). 

As noted in Attachment G, the aircraft fueling setbacks for Norwood Airport are in the process of 

being updated to reflect federal standards. The minimum distance away from BEH's proposed 

hangar that fuel can be dispensed is 25 feet. 

Regarding the TOFA issue, to review, the design standard for Norwood Airport's TOFA width 

(Attachment E) is 115 feet, or, 57.5 feet from the taxi-lane centerline. At the December 2012 

NAC meeting, the TOFA issue, in particular, was discussed. Jeff Adler was at the meeting, and 

he agreed to speak with FAA about the possibility of requesting a TOF A modification to 

standard. Among other things, this would have allowed BEH to fuel aircraft inside the object-free 

area. However, as Mr. Adler noted in his 12/20/12 e-mail to me, which was then passed on to Mr. 

Donovan:" .. . The concern from FAA is the use of the current taxi-lane (size and type of aircraft) 

and how that would change by allowing possible larger itinerant aircraft operating on this taxilane 

late at night looking for fuel. Although there may not be any documented incidents along this 

taxiway, that could change with itinerant aircraft operating in this area where the current taxilane 

does not meet OFA (object-free area) standards." 

Attachment F is a hand-drawn schematic which shows that in the vicinity of the gate 3 taxi-lane, a 

number of fixed objects (buildings, hangars, bollitrds, a fire hydrant, etc.) already exist inside the 

57.5 ft. TOFA. For this reason, as noted in FAA's e-mail, "the current taxi-lane does not meet 

OF A standards." This, along with BEH's plan to fuel itinerant aircraft off the gate 3 taxi-lane 

makes FAA reluctant to approve a modification to standard, as evidenced by subsequent 

conversations with the federal agency. 

In summary, looking at the two standards (fueling setbacks and TOFA), my concern is the 

availability of space for BEH to establish and conduct fueling operations at, or beyond, the 

aircraft fueling setbacks, while also remaining outside the gate 3 TOFA. Simply put, there's 

not enough real estate available to currently comply with both standards. 

To remain in compliance with federal standards, I would therefore ask the NAC to consider any 

applicable lease opportunities moving forward. 

1 The TOFA was discussed at the December 2012 NAC meeting, and the revision of OWD's fueling 

setback regulations- to coincide with NFPA federal standards-was discussed at the May 8, 2013 NAC 

meeting.
### §184. Conduct of certain public health-related activities

#### (a) In general

With respect to civilian human health-related research and development activities relating to countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear and other emerging terrorist threats carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services (including the Public Health Service), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall set priorities, goals, objectives, and policies and develop a coordinated strategy for such activities in collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure consistency with the national policy and strategic plan developed pursuant to section 182(2) of this title.

#### (b) Evaluation of progress

In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall collaborate with the Secretary in developing specific benchmarks and outcome measurements for evaluating progress toward achieving the priorities and goals described in such subsection.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title III, §304, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2165.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 304 of Pub. L. 107–296. Subsec. (c) of section 304 of Pub. L. 107–296 amended section 233 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7749

KATHERINE MARIE JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00609-MHL) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine Marie Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Deana A. Malek, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), the parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in the case.
- 2 - PER CURIAM: Katherine Marie Jackson seeks to appeal the order of the magistrate judge denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. *The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
Opinion issued April 21, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00236-CV

———————————

IN RE ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Artis Charles Harrell, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus requesting that we compel the trial court to rule on all of Harrell’s 

pending motions in the underlying case.

1 We deny the petition.

1 The underlying case is Artis Charels Harrell v. Jerome Godinich Jr., cause number 

2018-30865, pending in the 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Beau Miller presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Hilda D. Lincoln, Deceased. (Two Proceedings.)

Motion to ’dispense with printing denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7749

KATHERINE MARIE JACKSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:05-cv-00609-MHL)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 2, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katherine Marie Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Deana A. Malek, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), the parties

consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in the

case.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Katherine Marie Jackson seeks to appeal the order of the

magistrate judge denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.*

 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
| Name                                  |   | State of Incorporation                                 |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |                                                   |
| The      State Bank and Trust Company |   | Ohio                                                   |
| RFCBC,      Inc.                      |   | Ohio                                                   |
| Rurban      Mortgage Company*         |   | Ohio                                                   |
| Rurbanc      Data Services, Inc.      |   | Ohio                                                   |
| Rurban      Statutory Trust I         |   | Declaration      of Trust – State of Connecticut |
| Rurban      Statutory Trust II        |   | Declaration      of Trust – State ofDelaware     |

----

----
# C_2009180EN.01004101.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/41

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2009 — Qualcomm v Commission

(Case T-48/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - Market for traffic telematics systems - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Commitments - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2009/C 180/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV (Waarle, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and D. Hull, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: K. Mojzesowicz and A. Whelan, and subsequently by K. Mojzesowicz and X. Lewis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: C.-D. Quassowski and S. Flockermann, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Lumma, acting as Agent, and by U. Karpenstein and A. Rosenfeld, lawyer); Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany); Daimler AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler AG (Stuttgart, Germany); Daimler Financial Services AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler Services AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by J. Schütze and A. von Graevenitz, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 — DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom/JV) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, Daimler AG and Daimler Financial Services AG to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, Daimler AG and Daimler Financial Services AG to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002











I, Leonard A. Rosenbaum, President and Chief Executive Officer of CVD Equipment Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 of CVD Equipment Corporation (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CVD Equipment Corporation.








Dated: March 7, 2011
/s/   Leonard A. RosenbaumLeonard A. RosenbaumChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29244]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XA767]


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting via webinar of its Groundfish Advisory 
Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be 
brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if 
appropriate.

DATES: This webinar will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 1:30 
p.m. Webinar registration URL information: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7242925507673157645.

ADDRESSES: Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 
Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

    The Groundfish Advisory Panel will discuss the last component of 
the Framework Adjustment 61/Specifications and Management Measures 
action--a proposed universal sector exemption to allow fishing for 
redfish and make preferred alternative recommendations to the 
Groundfish Committee. They will also receive an update on work to 
revise ABC control rules for groundfish stocks. Other business will be 
discussed, as necessary.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has 
been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address 
the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be 
recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is 
available upon request.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 31, 2020.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-29244 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P