alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Upper Cretaceous ammonite Watinoceras Warren in the Western Interior of the United States

By: William Aubrey Cobban

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1788

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
# Subpart 1533.1 - Protests

**Parent topic:**PART 1533 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES AND APPEALS

## 1533.103 Protests to the Agency.

Protests to the Agency are processed pursuant to the requirements of FAR 33.103. Contracting Officers must include in every solicitation the provision at 1552.233-70, Notice of Filing Requirements for Agency Protests.
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 43 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 43 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 43 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 993.2 Act.

*Act* means Public Act No. 10, 73d Congress, as amended and reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*).
§ 990.31 USDA licensees; Revocation. USDA shall immediately revoke the license of a USDA licensee if such licensee: ( a ) Pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, any felony related to a controlled substance; or
( b ) Made any materially false statement with regard to this part to USDA or its representatives with a culpable mental state greater than negligence; or
( c ) Is found to be growing cannabis exceeding the acceptable hemp THC level with a culpable mental state greater than negligence or negligently violated this part three times in five years.
#### § 15.27 Contact with debtor's employing agency.

If the debtor is employed by the Federal government or is a member of the military establishment or the Coast Guard, collection by offset must be accomplished in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5514 and the provisions of 10 CFR part 16.

[56 FR 51830, Oct. 16, 1991]
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 71 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.3

                            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 Quarterly Report of Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William A. Owen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 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.

/s/ Mark C. Corcoran
-----------------------------------

Chief Accounting Officer
April 30, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor
Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Order entered October 26, 2017

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 00039

- CR

CHRISTOPHER ARIC RAD KE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F

- 9602380

- N



### O RDER

The State’s October 25, 2017 motion for extension of time to file a brief is GRANTED

,

and the brief submitted to this Court on October 25, 2017 is ORDERED filed as of that date.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS

PRESIDING JUSTICE
§ 990.29 Violations. Violations of this part shall be subject to enforcement in accordance with the terms of this section. ( a ) *Negligent violations.* Hemp producers are not subject to more than one negligent violation per calendar year. A hemp producer shall be subject to enforcement for negligently: ( 1 ) Failing to provide an accurate legal description of land where hemp is produced;
( 2 ) Producing hemp without a license; and
( 3 ) Producing cannabis exceeding the acceptable hemp THC level. Hemp producers do not commit a negligent violation under this paragraph (a) if they make reasonable efforts to grow hemp and the cannabis does not have a total THC concentration of more than 1.0 percent on a dry weight basis.
( b ) *Corrective action for negligent violations.* For each negligent violation, USDA will issue a Notice of Violation and require a corrective action plan from the producer. The producer shall comply with the corrective action plan to cure the negligent violation. Corrective action plans will be in place for a minimum of two (2) years from the date of their approval. Corrective action plans will, at a minimum, include: ( 1 ) The date by which the producer shall correct each negligent violation;
( 2 ) Steps that will be taken to correct each negligent violation; and
( 3 ) A description of the procedures that will demonstrate compliance must be submitted to USDA.
( c ) *Negligent violations and criminal enforcement.* A producer who negligently violates this part shall not, as a result of that violation, be subject to any criminal enforcement action by any Federal, State, Tribal, or local government.
( d ) *Subsequent negligent violations.* If a subsequent negligent violation occurs while a corrective action plan is in place, a new corrective action plan must be submitted with a heightened level of quality control, staff training, and quantifiable action measures.
( e ) *Negligent violations and license revocation.* A producer that negligently violates the license 3 times in a 5-year period shall have their license revoked and be ineligible to produce hemp for a period of 5 years beginning on the date of the third violation.
( f ) *Culpable mental state greater than negligence.* If USDA determines that a licensee has violated the terms of the license or of this part with a culpable mental state greater than negligence: ( 1 ) USDA shall immediately report the licensee to: ( i ) The U.S. Attorney General; and
( ii ) The chief law enforcement officer of the State or Indian territory, as applicable, where the production is located; and
( 2 ) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to culpable violations.
Subpart 1631.1—Definitions

Parent topic: PART 1631—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

1631.1 Definitions.

The definitions in FAR 31.001 are applicable to this section unless otherwise noted.
Subpart 404.2 - Contract Distribution    **Parent topic:** PART 404 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS404.203 Taxpayer identification information.       (a) If the contractor furnishes taxpayer identification number (TIN) and type of organization information pursuant to solicitation provision 52.204-3 or 52.212-3, and the USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Controller Operations Division, New Orleans will be the payment office, that information will be entered into the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) in accordance with FFIS Vendor Table Maintenance Procedures set forth in FFIS Bulletins issued by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and AGAR Advisories issued by the Office of Procurement and Property Management.          (b) Separate submission of the TIN or type of organization information, in accordance with 52.204-3 or 52.212-3, is not required for contractors registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00403-CV

Monica Weatherly, Appellant

v.

Demetrius Lincoln, Appellee

FROM THE 423RD DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY 

NO. 423-2204, THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on November 5, 

2020. On November 4, 2020, we notified appellant that the Court had received notice that no 

payment, or arrangements for payment, had been made for the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the 

clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and 

submit a status report regarding this appeal by November 16. Further, the notice advised 

appellant that her failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal 

for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to 

this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed. This Court had also received notice 

that no request for the reporter’s record has been made. 

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to 

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court 
2

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established 

that she is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because 

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: February 3, 2021
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROfECTlOMAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

DFFfCE OF AIR AND RADIATION



### Ms. Julie 

### R.Domike 

### Mr. Alec 

### C. Zolcaroli Counsel 

### for 

### Mack Trucks, Inc. and Volvo Group North America, 

### LLC Kilpatrick 

### Townsend & Stockton, LLP Suite 900 607 14' Street, NW 

### Washington,D.C, 20005-20 18

Dear 

### Ms.Domike 

### and Mr. Zacaroli:

The U.S.

### Environmental 

### Protection Agency 

### receivedyour letter dated February 7,20 12. 

### In the letter, you ask 

### the EPA to confirm that 

### EPA 

### will 

### not take any actionbased 

### on the use of

### nonconformance penalties provided under the Interim 

### Final Rule until 

### such 

### time as my petitions for stay 

### ofthe 

### rule have been resolved or, 

### in the alternative, to provide at 

### least fifteen days notice to 

### Mack prior to 

### taking such action.

After reviewing your request, the 

### EPA is not 

### in a 

### position toprovide such assurances. 

### The EPA 

### believes that it is appropriate

### and reasonable to take 

### action in furtheranceofits regulations, 

### includingthose promulgated in the Interim 

### Final 

### Rule, in the normal course ofbusiness 

### and thus does not believe it is appropriateto commit to take 

### no 

### actionuntil suchtime as 

### any petitions for stay of 

### the rule have been resolved. In addition, the EPA 

### daesnot 

### make a 

### determinationconcerningissuance of a certificate of conformity until our review 

### of the 

### application is 

### completed and we are satisfied that itis appropriate to issue a certificate. EPA's 

### standard practice for many 

### years has been to then promptly 

### issue a certificate
to the requesting manufacturer. 

### The 

### notice requested

### by Volvo would presumably occur at 

### the point the 

### EPA has determind that a 

### certificate

### should be issued, as there would be 

### no basis for providing notice prior 

### to that point. Complying

### with Volvo's request 

### would mean delaying issuance ofa certificate 

### for 

### the requested time period, 

### contrary to the 

### normal procedures the 

### EPA applies to 

### ail manufacturers. Particularlygiven the exigencies 

### identified 

### in the Interim Final Rule, the EPA does not believe it is appropriateta bind itselfto such a 

### delay prior 

### to taking action 

### on a certificate application.
Sincerely,
LNR

Partners, LLC(logo)



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF



LNR PARTNERS, LLC



The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being
the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the “Special Servicer”), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, hereby certifies, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized
officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:



|1. | A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2018 and ending on December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of the Special Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and      
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



| | LNR PARTNERS, LLC,                 
| | -----------------------------------
| | a Florida limited liability company
| |                                    
| | By:                                
| | Job Warshaw                        
| | President                          



Dated: February 19, 2019



1601
Washington Avenue ● Suite 700 ● Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ● Fax:
(305) 695-5601
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2007-1631.

#### Tuohy v. Taylor.

Defiance App. No. 4-06-23, 2007-Ohio-3597. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
#### § 11.5 Policy.

It is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to carry out its authority to establish and administer, in a manner consistent with traditional American concepts of justice, a personnel security program in the interests of the common defense and security for the purpose of safeguarding special nuclear material and preventing sabotage which would endanger the public by exposure to radiation. To this end, the Commission has established criteria for determining eligibility for special nuclear material access authorization and will afford affected individuals the opportunity for administrative review of questions concerning their eligibility for special nuclear material access authorization.
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 18 of 18
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RALPH BROWN, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-642-MEF

)

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

ORDER

On November 20, 2007, this Court entered an Order that, among other things, directed

Defendant Champion Home Builders (“CHB”) to show cause why this Court should not

dismiss the Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Doc. # 11), filed September 7, 2006, as moot.

On November 29, 2007, this Court entered an order setting a deadline for CHB’s response

for December 5, 2007. CHB has to this date failed to respond to this Order.

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Champion Home Builders Co., Inc. is hereby

directed to SHOW CAUSE on or before December 21, 2007, why this Court should not

DISMISS the Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Doc. # 11), filed September 7, 2006, as moot.

DONE this 12th day of December, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 43 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF *

AMERICA, *

*

VS. * CR NO.: 1:06-CR-197-CSC

*

RODERICK CHARLES *

MELVIN *

*

*

REPLY TO OBJECTION BY

UNITED STATES

Comes now the Defendant, Roderick Melvin, by his attorney

Malcolm R. Newman, and herewith responds to the objection to the

Magistrate’s Recommendation filed by the United States.

Counsel for the Defendant can cull only two relatively

insignificant facts the United States deems the Magistrate Judge got

wrong and thereby reached an untenable conclusion; that Mrs. Steele

did in fact call the police from the Petro station (U.S. Obj. p. 6) and that

Deputy Crooks did recall the description of the suspicious person (Id. p.

6)

The United States has chosen to ignore Deputy Crook’s testimony

(Evid. Hrg. Tr. at 24) where he could not recall what information he was

provided by the prior deputy at shift change, or, if that deputy even gave

him any information. This fact is further solidified by Deputy Crooks to

the point where there can be no open dispute (Evid. Hrg. Tr. at 25).

And with regard to whether Mrs. Steele gave a description to the police

when she called from the Petro station, the Court is quite correct that

there is no evidence of what was reported; the U.S. would have this

Court “fill in” this gap since a reasonable person would have done that.

This Court correctly declined to do that.

Case 1:06-cr-00197-MEF-CSC Document 36 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
The United States again cites the Court to language in Alabama v.

White, 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 2416, (1990) articulating the

reasonable suspicion standard. Yet, the United States seems somewhat

aphasic in grasping the meaning of “totality of the circumstances”

confronting Deputy Crooks. As the Court points out, he, at best, maybe

had a sketchy physical description and clearly little to no personal

observation on which to approach Roderick Melvin; thus warranting the

result the Court reached. Crooks testified to nothing that aroused his

suspicions about Melvin; only that he was directed to Melvin by

someone he clearly did not know (Evid. Hrg. Tr. at 27, 28), and had no

reason to credit.

CONCLUSION

The Magistrate Judge’s Ruling is both factually and legally sound

and the United States’ Objection should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Malcolm R. Newman

Malcolm R. Newman (NEW017)

P.O. Box 6137

Dothan, Alabama 36302

(334)792-2132

ASB-2826-M39M

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 18, 2006, I electronically filed

the forgoing with the Clerk of the Court using the SM/ECF System

which will send notification of such filing to Leura G. Canary, U.S.

Attorney and Tommie Brown Hardwick, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

/s/ Malcolm R. Newman

Malcolm R. Newman

Case 1:06-cr-00197-MEF-CSC Document 36 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Davon L. Calloway v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00899-CR

Trial court case number: 1495161

Trial court: 263rd District Court

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the abovereferenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting access to a 

copy of the appellate record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. 

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from 

the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the 

reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk 

shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon

which delivery of the record to the appellant is made. Finally, appellant’s response to his 

appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed within 45 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 22, 2018