alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51102 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARLON ANTONIO DOMINGUEZ-BORJON, also known as Marlo Dominguez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-373-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marlon Antonio Dominguez-Borjon raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
38573.

#### McDOWELL v. THE STATE.

Decided November 30, 1960.

*Al Hatcher, Rollin A. Stanley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harold H. Ward, Solicitor-General, W. W. Larsen, Jr., Larsen & Larsen,*contra.

Carlisle, Judge.

An approved brief of the evidence is essential to a valid motion for a new trial, and where, as in this case, the record shows that the trial judge overruled the motion for a new trial on the general grounds on August 4, 1960, and that no valid brief of the evidence was approved by him until August 31, 1960, the judgment overruling the motion was proper and must be .affirmed. Since the trial judge did not have before him, at the time he entered the judgment, the brief of the evidence, the only legal judgment he could have rendered in the case was one of dismissal of the motion, but his judgment overruling it reaches the same result and, therefore, that judgment will not be disturbed. See *Rich v. State,*74 Ga. 811; *Gulick v. Mulcahy,*95 Ga. App. 158 (97 S. E. 2d 362); *Scales v. Neal,*96 Ga. App. 168 (99 S. E. 2d 498). Cf. *General Finance &c. Corp. v. Davis,*97 Ga. App. 391 (103 S. E. 2d 149).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
### Geology and ground water of the Molalla-Salem slope area, northern Willamette Valley, Oregon

By: E. R. Hampton

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1997

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 1 North**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 1 South**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Geologic map of the Molalla-Salem Slope area, Oregon(1966)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

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.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 10

- 00687

- CR
Rosendo MURILLO , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2004CR5765 Honorable Sharon MacRae , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 27, 2010
DISMISSED The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is a “plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification tha t shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). Appellant’s counsel filed a written notice with this court that counsel reviewed the record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that04

- 10

- 00687

- CR

- 2

- appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that he has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Te x. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN FORM 10-Q FOR MEDIALINK WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,024,352
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,721,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,809,895
<PP&E>                                           3,198,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,161,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,595,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,276,537
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            52,493
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,861,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,595,833
<SALES>                                         20,365,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,365,745
<CGS>                                            8,434,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,434,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,420,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,735,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,090,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,645,088
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,645,088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.29
                                      
                                     

</TABLE>
225 So.2d 475

#### Eugene J. TRAHAN v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al.

No. 50064.

Aug. 18, 1969.

In re: Eugene J. Trahan applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
Exhibit 21.1
  SUBSIDIARIES
  DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY:
  STATE OFNAME OF SUBSIDIARY

INCORPORATIONPCT International Holdings Inc.

DelawareFlavors Holdings Inc.

DelawareMafco Worldwide Corporation

DelawareMafco Shanghai Corporation

DelawareEVD Holdings Inc.

DelawarePneumo Abex LLC

DelawareConcord Pacific Corporation

MainePneumo Abex Lessee Corp.

DelawareCA Acquisition Holdings Inc.

DelawareHarland Clarke Holdings Corp.

DelawareHarland Clarke Corp.

DelawareChecks in the Mail, Inc.

DelawareHFS Scantron Holdings Corp.

New YorkScantron Corporation

DelawareHarland Financial Solutions, Inc.

OregonHFS Research & Development, Inc.

DelawareJohn H. Harland Company of Puerto Rico

GeorgiaCentralia Holdings Corporation

GeorgiaTransaction Holdings Inc.

TennesseeTransaction Graphics Inc.

TennesseeCheckboxes Direct Inc.

Tennessee   FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY:
   NAME OF SUBSIDIARY

JURISDICTIONEVD Holdings S.A.

FranceExtraits Vegetaux Et Derives, S.A.

FranceWei Feng Enterprises Ltd.

British Virgin IslandsXianyang Concord Natural Products Co. Ltd.

Peoples Republic of ChinaZhangjiagang Free Trade Zone MAFCO Liantai Biotech Co.,
    Ltd.

Peoples Republic of ChinaMafco Weihai Green Industry of Science and Technology Co. Ltd.
    (40% owned)

Peoples Republic of ChinaScantron Canada, Ltd.

CanadaHarland Israel Ltd.

IsraelHarland Financial Solutions Worldwide Limited

Ireland
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                           7,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,327
<PP&E>                                          89,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                (79,873)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,518
<SALES>                                          6,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,588
<CGS>                                            5,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,706
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,335)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,335)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR SIP REVISION MAMMOTH LAKES PM1o MAINTENANCE PLAN AND REDESIGNATION REQUEST Planning Area: Mammoth Lakes, California Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V - Criteria for Determining the Enclosed Notes Completeness of Plan Submissions ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 2.1 (a) Submittal Letter from Governor's ARB cover letter to Plan YES transmittal ; ARB Executive Designee Officer is designee

. See Plan Enclosure 1 -Affidavit of Service by the Clerk of the 2.1 (b) Evidence of Adoption YES Board; Plan Enclosure 3- GBUAPCD Board Order 140505-03; and ARB Resolution 14-27. See Plan Enclosure 3
- 2

. 1(c) Legal Authority Citation YES GBUAPCD Board Order 140505-03 ; ARB Resolution 14-27. (a) See Plan Enclosure 4- 2

. 1(d) Copy of: Adopted Air Quality a. Attainment Plan YES Maintenance Plan and PM 10 b: Contin9ency Measures Redesignation Request; (b) See Plan Enclosure 4 , pp. 43-45

. See ARB Resolution 14-27; Plan 2

. 1(e) Evidence of Compliance with YES Enclosure 1 -Affidavit of State's Procedural Requirements Service by the Clerk of the Board. 2.1 (f) Evidence of Public Notice See Plan Enclosure 1 -Affidavit Consistent with 40 CFR part YES of Service by the Clerk of the 51.102 Board. See Plan transmittal letter from 2.1 (g) Certification of Public Hearing in YES GBUAPCD to ARB dated Accordance with Notice May 22, 2014; ARB Resolution 14-27

. See Plan Enclosure 2
- 2.1 (h) Compilation of Public Comments YES GBUAPCD May 5, 2012 Staff and Responses Report, p. 4 ; ARB cover letter to Plan transmittal. See Plan Enclosure 4 -Adopted 2.2(a) Identification of Regulated YES Air Quality Maintenance Plan Pollutant and PM10 Redesignation Request, p. v.See Plan Enclosure 4 -Adopted 2

.2(b) Identification ofAttainment YES Air Quality Maintenance Plan Area/Status and PM1 0 Redesignation Request, p. 1. See Plan Enclosure 4 -Adopted 2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on YES Air Quality Maintenance Plan Emissions and PM1 0 Redesignation Request, Chapter 8. 2

.2(d) Demonstration that Plan See Plan Enclosure 4- Adopted Approval/!mplementation YES Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PM1 0 Redesignation Protects NAAQS Request, Chapter 8

. See Plan Enclosure 4- Adopted 2.2(e) Modeling Support YES Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PM1 0 Redesignation Request, Chapter 6. See Plan Enclosure 4- Adopted 2

.2(f) Continuous Emission Reduction Yes Air Quality Maintenance Plan Technology and PM10 Redesignation Request, Chapter 7. See Plan Enclosure 2- 2.2(g) Compliance Requirements Yes GBUAPCD May 5, 2012 Staff Report, Enclosure 2- Rule 431

- Particulate Emissions

. See Plan Enclosure 4 -Adopted 2

.2(h) Enforcement Yes Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PM1 0 Redesignation Request, Chapter 7. See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans ; 2.2(i) BACM Justification Yes California
- Mammoth Lakes Nonattainment Area; PM 10; Federal Register Vol. 61 , No. 122, pp. 32343, June 24 , 1996

. X :\GBUAPCD SIPs\Mammoth Lakes PM10\Submittal Documents\S IP Checklist 140925

.docx
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-25-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-27-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                                              67
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                       734
<INVENTORY>                                      7,461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,961
<PP&E>                                          92,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,858
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,537
<SALES>                                          8,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,049
<CGS>                                            8,060
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,551)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,551)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
#### § 1316.62 Interlocutory appeals from rulings of the presiding officer.

Rulings of the presiding officer may not be appealed to the Administrator prior to his consideration of the entire hearing without first requesting the consent of the presiding officer. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of a party's request for such consent, the presiding officer shall certify on the record or in writing his determination of whether the allowance of an interlocutory appeal is clearly necessary to prevent exceptional delay, expense or prejudice to any party, or substantial detriment to the public interest. If the presiding officer denies an interlocutory appeal, he shall, within three (3) business days, transmit his determination and the parties' filings related to the interlocutory appeal to the Administrator for the Administrator's discretionary review. If an interlocutory appeal is allowed by the presiding officer or if the Administrator determines that an appeal is warranted under this section, any party to the hearing may file a brief in quintuplicate with the Administrator within such period that the Administrator directs. No oral argument will be heard unless the Administrator directs otherwise.

[84 FR 18140, Apr. 30, 2019]
#### § 1401.17 Markings on released documents.

When requested records contain matters that are exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), but such exempted matters can be reasonably segregated from the remainder of the records, the records shall be disclosed by ONDCP with the necessary redactions. If records are disclosed in part, ONDCP will mark them to show the amount and location of information redacted and the exemption(s) under which the redactions were made unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**ROBIN TRAVALINE,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**SCOTT TRAVALINE,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 476 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
§ 145.176 Artificially sweetened canned pears. ( a ) Artificially sweetened canned pears is the food which conforms to the definition and standard of identity prescribed for canned pears by § 145.175(a) except that in lieu of a packing medium specified in § 145.175(a)(3), the packing medium used is water artificially sweetened with saccharin, sodium saccharin, or a combination of both. Such packing medium may be thickened with pectin and may contain any mixture of any edible organic salt or salts and any edible organic acid or acids as a flavor-enhancing agent, in a quantity not more than is reasonably required for that purpose.
( b ) ( 1 ) The specified name of the food is “artificially sweetened ______”, the blank being filled in with the name prescribed by § 145.175(a) for canned pears having the same optional pear ingredient.
( 2 ) The artificially sweetened food is subject to the requirements for label statement of ingredients used, as prescribed for canned pears by § 145.175(a). If the packing medium is thickened with pectin, the label shall bear the statement “thickened with pectin”. When any organic salt or acid or any mixture of two or more of these is added, the label shall bear the common or usual name of each such ingredient.
[42 FR 14414, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 58 FR 2880, Jan. 6, 1993]
#### MARK MORGAN ET AL., EXECUTORS, ETC., APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEACHERS’ PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted February 17, 1939

Decided April 21, 1939.

For the appellants, *Frank I. Casey.*

For the respondent, *Lindabury, Depue*& *Faulks.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Porter in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
Unassociated Document


    TERMINATION
      OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT dated
      June 30, 2005 (the “Consulting Agreement”) between Mahjong Development Inc.
      (formerly 9143-3250 Quebec Inc.) (the “Corporation”) and Ian Sherrington on
      behalf of a Netherlands corporation (the “Consultant”)

    


    


    WHEREAS
      Ian
      Sherrington’s employment with the Corporation has been terminated effective June
      24, 2006;

    


    WHEREAS
      the
      Consulting Agreement terminates automatically upon the termination of Ian
      Sherrington’s employment with the Corporation;

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE,
      the
      parties hereto agree and acknowledge as follows:

    


    	1.  	
            The
              Consulting Agreement is terminated effective June 24,
              2006.

          


     

    	2.  	
            Each
              of the parties hereto acknowledges and agrees that it has no claim
              against
              the other with respect to any matter directly or indirectly relating
              to or
              arising from the Consulting Agreement. Each of the parties hereto grants
              unto the other a full, complete and final release and discharge in
              respect
              of any claims directly or indirectly relating to or arising from the
              Consulting Agreement.

          


     

    	3.  	
            This
              agreement does not apply to any matter relating to the employment of
              Ian
              Sherrington by the Corporation nor to the termination of such
              employment.

          


     

    	4.  	
            The
              parties hereto agree that the present agreement constitutes a transaction
              within the meaning of articles 2631 and following of the Civil
              Code of
              Quebec.

          


     

    	5.  	
            The
              parties hereto have required that this agreement and related documents
              be
              drafted in the English language. Les parties aux présentes ont exigé que
              ce contrat et les documents y afférents soient rédigés dans la langue
              anglaise

          


    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF
      the
      parties have signed this agreement at Montreal, Quebec, this day of June
      2006.

     

     

    


    MAHJONG
      DEVELOPMENT INC.

    


    


                                                                           
___________________________________

    Per:
      Linda Lemieux

    


    


    


                                                                           
____________________________________

    IAN
      SHERRINGTON,
      on
      behalf of a

    Nertherlands
      corporation