alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-19-00392-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

RYAN SANDERS AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants,

v.

STEPHEN W. DEAN, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant, Victoria Sanders, appealed a judgment of eviction entered by the 

County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. On September 9, 2019, the Clerk 

of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d)(1),(2). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e); id. R.

25.1(d)(1),(2). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the 
2

district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. On September 30, 2019, 

the Clerk notified appellant that the defects had not been corrected and warned appellant 

that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured within ten days. 

Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or corrected the defects.

On its own motion, with ten days’ notice to the parties, an appellate court may 

dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the 

clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to 

comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

GREGORY T. PERKES

Justice

Delivered and filed the

26th day of November, 2019.
APPENDIX C – Pages 10-13 Contains Proprietary Pesticide Usage Data - May be 

Requested Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
# •L-:1 DavisWright •• Trema1ne LLP

July 3, 2014

Federal Aviation Administration, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 800 Independence Avenue, Southwest Washington, DC 20591 Jeffrey M. Harper Federal Aviation Administration, Office ofRegional Counsel 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Request to Cancel Hearing, FAA Case No. 2103WP910206 To Hearing Docket Clerk: Suite 2200 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Mark Bartlett 206-757-8298 tel markbartlett@dwt.com 

# RE .·cFIVED '**~~** 

## JUL 1 C. 

## 2014 

# HEARING DOCKET

Heath Teena and the FAA have reacheda settlement with regard to FAA Case No. 2013WP910206. As a result, HeathTeena wishes to cancel its June 13 request for a hearing. Sincerely, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

# MJr>~ Mark Bartlett
Christopher LoPresti 1 Grand Court Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Exemption # 13467 Amendment
**BA SIS FOR THE A** **MENDMENT TO EXEMPTION #** 13467 I, Christopher LoPresti, received a 333 Exemption # 13467 to operate DJI Phantom 3 aircrafts and 3DR Solo aircrafts for aerial photography, aerial inspections, aerial data collection , and aerial photography for events and promotional purposes . The aircrafts listed above are appropriate for certain missions , but not for all missions
. I am requesting an amendment to Exemption # 13467 to operate additional UAS aircraft
. I will continue to use 3DR Solo and the DJI Phantom 3 technology when necessary. I am requesting that additional UAS aircraft be added to the existing exemption by means of an amendment . The additional aircraft and UAS systems that I would like to add to my exemption # 13467 are as follows:

**Yuneec Ty phoon Q5004K**  **Yuneec Ty phoon Q500G**  **Yuneec Tornado H920 DJI Inspire 1**  All of the above systems have limited flying time capabilities (approximately 20 - 30 minutes of fl ight on a single charge), do not carry anything other than a camera, operate by battery power, and do not carry flammable fuel. In fact, in the event of the loss of communications with the pilot, these devices are programmed to “return to home” and/or travel a pre -determined route to land safely. **Summary**

**for Federal Register publication. The rules from which**  **Christopher LoPresti seeks exemption:** Conditions and limitations #1 of exemption # 13467

**A. Brief description of the nature of the amendment**  **Christopher LoPresti seeks:**  Christopher LoPresti seeks an amendment to exemption # 13467 to operate additional small UAS aircraft with an equivalent level of safety. The amendment requests use of a proprietary design s to perform aerial photography, aerial inspections, aerial data collection , and aerial photography for events and promotional purposes. I understand the only part of exemption # 13467 that will be amended is section 1 of the conditions and limitations listed on the exemption.
I am s requesting an amendment to #1 of the conditions and limitations issued with exemption # 13467 to include several new UAS aircraft. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my at christophers@terrestrialimaging.com
. Sincerely, Christopher LoPresti
#### § 330.107 Costs.

All costs (including those incurred under [§ 330.106 of this part](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/part-330/section-330.106) by the government or the owner) incident to the inspection, handling, cleaning, safeguarding, treating, or other disposal of means of conveyance or products, articles, or plant pests under this part shall be borne by the owner. Services of the inspector during regularly assigned hours of duty at the usual places of duty shall be furnished without cost to the person requesting the services, unless a user fee is payable under [§ 354.3 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-354.3).

Cross Reference:

See note following [§ 330.105](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-330.105).

[[56 FR 14844](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-14844), Apr. 12, 1991]
#### § 3560.612 Loan limits.

The maximum loan amount will be 100 percent of the allowable total development costs of on-farm labor housing and related facilities subject to §§ 3560.603, 3560.604 and 3560.608.
Denied and Opinion Filed August 28, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01006-CV IN RE ADRIAN HOLDEN, Relator Original Proceeding from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F06-73800

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Before the Court is relator’s August 22, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. Relator asks this Court to compel the tria l court to rule on a post-conviction motion for DNA testing that relator contends he filed in 2019. It is relator’s burden to provide the Cour t with a record that is sufficient to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A petition seek ing mandamus relief must include a certification stating that the relator “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j). We are bound by this Court’s–2– precedent requiring exceptionally strict comp liance with rule 52.3( j)’s requirements. In re Stewart , No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Here, relator provided an unsworn declaration wherein he stated that “the st atements contained in this [p]etition [f]or a [w]rit [o]f [m]andamus [are] within [his ] personal knowledge and are true and correct,” and he provided a certification wh erein he stated that “[e]very factual statement in the Petition is supported by co mpetent evidence here [sic] is true and correct.” These certifications do not meet rule 52.3(j)’s requirements. To comply with prior opinions of this Court that inte rpret the mandamus rule s, a relator should use the exact words of rule 52.3(j) w ithout deviation in his certification. Id

. Additionally, although rela tor filed documents with his petition, they are not sworn or certified copies as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a). Without a properly certified petition and properly authenticated appendix or record, we conclude that re lator has not carried his burden. See In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.–3– Relator’s August 22, 2024 motion to procee d in forma pauperis is denied as moot.

241006F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn atlas of upper tropospheric radiances observed in the 6 to 7-micrometer water vapor band using TOVS data from the NOAA weather satellites during 1979-1991This document is a pictorial atlas of the Earth's radiance emitted in the 6 to 7 micro-m water vapor band. At these wavelengths, the infrared brightness temperature corresponds to the layer-average temperature of the top few millimeters of water vapor in the atmosphere. At low altitudes, bright regions are dry slots in the upper troposphere. The satellite observations were obtained from NOAA's cloud and angle corrected measurements made by a series of polar orbiting TOVS (TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder) instruments flown from 1979 to 1991. TOVS 6.7 micro-m and 7.2 micro-m channels were converted to a single brightness temperature that simulates a high altitude channel near '6.5' micro-m. For climatological studies, the daily '6.5' micro-m overpass data were gridded to a cartesian projection with 5 by 5 degree horizontal resolution between 40 degrees N and 40 degrees S latitude. This atlas presents greyscale images of the '6.5' micro-m brightness fields for every day in every month for 13 years. The mean brightness for each of the 12 months for 13 years is presented to display interannual variability, and the annual cycle of 12 monthly means is summarized on a single page. Statistical summaries are presented from other investigations in progress.Document ID19920016088Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsChesters, Dennis*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Sharma, OM*(Research and Data Systems, Inc., Lanham MD., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1992Subject CategoryMeteorology And ClimatologyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:104563NASA-TM-104563REPT-92B00081Accession Number92N25331Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 460-24-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920016088.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
PUBLIC LAW 108–431—DEC. 3, 2004 118 STAT. 2609

Public Law 108–431

108th Congress

An Act

To reaffirm the inherent sovereign rights of the Osage Tribe to determine its

membership and form of government.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS OF THE OSAGE

TRIBE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds as follows:

(1) The Osage Tribe is a federally recognized tribe based

in Pawhuska, Oklahoma.

(2) The Osage Allotment Act of June 28, 1906 (34 Stat.

539), states that the ‘‘legal membership’’ of the Osage Tribe

includes the persons on the January 1, 1906 roll and their

children, and that each ‘‘member’’ on that roll is entitled to

a headright share in the distribution of funds from the Osage

mineral estate and an allotment of the surface lands of the

Osage Reservation.

(3) Today only Osage Indians who have a headright share

in the mineral estate are ‘‘members’’ of the Osage Tribe.

(4) Adult Osage Indians without a headright interest cannot

vote in Osage government elections and are not eligible to

seek elective office in the Osage Tribe as a matter of Federal

law.

(5) A principal goal of Federal Indian policy is to promote

tribal self-sufficiency and strong tribal government.

(b) REAFFIRMATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS OF THE OSAGE TRIBE.—

(1) MEMBERSHIP.—Congress hereby clarifies that the term

‘‘legal membership’’ in section 1 of the Act entitled, ‘‘An Act

For the division of lands and funds of the Osage Indians in

Oklahoma Territory, and for other purposes’’, approved June

28, 1906 (34 Stat. 539), means the persons eligible for allotments of Osage Reservation lands and a pro rata share of

the Osage mineral estate as provided in that Act, not membership in the Osage Tribe for all purposes. Congress hereby

reaffirms the inherent sovereign right of the Osage Tribe to

determine its own membership, provided that the rights of

any person to Osage mineral estate shares are not diminished

thereby.

(2) GOVERNMENT.—Notwithstanding section 9 of the Act

entitled, ‘‘An Act For the division of lands and funds of the

Osage Indians in Oklahoma Territory, and for other purposes’’,

approved June 28, 1906 (34 Stat. 539), Congress hereby

reaffirms the inherent sovereign right of the Osage Tribe to

determine its own form of government.

Oklahoma.

Dec. 3, 2004

[H.R. 2912]

118 STAT. 2610 PUBLIC LAW 108–431—DEC. 3, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2912:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–502 (Comm. on Resources)

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–343 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

June 1, considered and passed House.

Nov. 19, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(3) ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA.—At the request of the

Osage Tribe, the Secretary of the Interior shall assist the

Osage Tribe with conducting elections and referenda to implement this section.

Approved December 3, 2004.
#### § 3801.2 Public inspection, copying, and indexing.

5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) requires that certain materials be made available for public inspection and copying and that a current index of these materials be published quarterly or otherwise be made available. WAOB does not maintain any materials within the scope of these requirements.
EXHIBIT 10.8



                       SUMMARY of DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION



Quipp currently pays each non-employee director an annual cash retainer of
$6,000 ($8,000 for the Chairman of the Board and $7,000 for each Committee
chair), a fee of $1,200 for attendance at each meeting of the Board of Directors
($600 for each meeting attended by teleconference) and a fee of $400 for each
meeting of a Board committee ($200 for each meeting attended by teleconference).
Quipp has, in the past, granted an option to newly elected directors to purchase
5,000 shares of Quipp common stock, and may continue this practice in the
future. Options previously granted to non-employee directors had an exercise
price per share equal to the closing price of Quipp's common stock on the date
of grant. The options vested immediately and expire on the tenth anniversary of
the date of grant.

Quipp also reimburses directors for expenses relating to their attendance at
Board and Board committee meetings
Subpart 4.3 - Paper Documents

Parent topic: Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters

4.300 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides policies and procedures on contractor-submitted paper documents.

4.301 Definition.

Printed or copied double-sided, as used in this subpart, means printing or reproducing a document

so that information is on both sides of a sheet of paper.

4.302 Policy.

(a) Section 3(a) of E.O. 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation

Management, directs agencies to implement waste prevention. In addition, section 2(e) of E.O.

13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, directs agencies

to eliminate waste. Electronic commerce methods (see 4.502) and double-sided printing and copying

are best practices for waste prevention.

(b) When electronic commerce methods (see 4.502) are not used, agencies shall require contractors

to submit paper documents to the Government relating to an acquisition printed or copied doublesided on at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber paper whenever practicable. If the contractor

cannot print or copy double-sided, it shall print or copy single-sided on at least 30 percent

postconsumer fiber paper.

4.303 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.204-4, Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Recycled Paper, in solicitations and

contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

Date: 7/2/2014 

Subject: Quizalofop ethyl. Harmonization of the US Tolerance and Canadian MRL for 

Sunflowers. 

PC Codes: 128711 (quizalofop ethyl) and 128709 

(quiza1ofop-P-ethy1, pesticidally active 

isomer) 

Decision No.: 492762 

Petition No.: NA 

Risk Assessment Type: NA 

TXRNo.: NA 

MRIDNo.: NA 

DP Barcode: 042131 5 

Registration No.: NA 

Regulatory Action: Reg Review 

Case No.: NA 

CAS No.: 100646-51-3 

40 CFR: § 180.441 

FROM: Jdeliz Negron-Encarnacion, Ph.D., Chemist ~7*' Risk Assessment Branch V 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

THROUGH: Michael Metzger, Branch Chief 

Risk Assessment Branch VNII 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

TO: Khue Nguyen, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 1 

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P) 

This memo was prepared to document the Health Effects Division tolerance recommendation 

based on the new Canadian maximum residue limit for sunflowers. In addition, the international 

harmonization section was edited. 

Page 1 of2 
International Harmonization 

The international residue limits discussion for quizalofop ethyl is included in the residue 

chemistry chapter (0371923, I. Negron, 12/4/2012) and in the risk assessment (D394192, D. 

Drew, 12/11120 12). In these document a revised tolerance for sunflower seeds was proposed. 

The maximum residue limit (MRL) established by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory 

Agency (PMRA) for quizalofop on sunflower was changed to 3 ppm in March 2014. During 

registration review an increase in the US tolerance to 2 ppm was recommended. For 

harmonization of the PMRA MRL and US tolerance level it is recommended that the US 

tolerance is increased to 3 ppm. 

In addition, HED would like to correct a word under the international harmonization section. 

The following sentence included in the previously mentioned documents should read as: 

"Harmonization is not possible for dry beans and edible podded beans since the US tolerance is 

higher than the Canadian MRL." 

Page 2 of2
# L_2021190EN.01010101.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 190/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 190/101

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 25 May 2021 determining the date on which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes its investigative and prosecutorial tasks

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 28 May 2021
  )

On the cover page and on page 100, the title of the Decision:

for:

‘Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 25 May 2021 determining the date on which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes its investigative and prosecutorial tasks’,

read:

‘Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 26 May 2021 determining the date on which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes its investigative and prosecutorial tasks’.

On page 102, the introductory sentence to the signature:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 25 May 2021.’,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 26 May 2021.’.

---
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Shelly, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Shelly*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 168.]

(No. 98-598

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 23, 1998.)

*Mentzer, Vuillemin & Mygrant, Ltd.,*and *Donald J. Malarcik, Jr.,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Coók and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection  with the annual report of North  American  Nickel Inc.  (formerly
Widescope  Resources  Inc.) (the  "Company")  on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2012 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Richard J. Mark, Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the  Report  containing  the  financial  statements  of the  Company  fully
     complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 15, 2013

/s/ Richard J. Mark
-----------------------------------
Richard J. Mark
Chief Executive 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.
```

----