alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6**  **5 8**  **9**

RONNIE K. BROOKING , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. MAHON, Warden, Mr. , Respondent

– Appell ee, and UNKNOWN, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the We st ern District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk , Senior District Judge. ( 7 : 1 0

- c v - 000 87

- jct

- mfu)

Submitted : September 24, 2010 Decided: October 7 , 2010

Before WILKINSON , DUNCAN, a nd WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d b y un published per curiam opinion
. Ronnie K. Brooking , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie K. Brooking seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ( 2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a consti tutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ru ling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Brooking has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, w e 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
# Official Journal C 215/31 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 215 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6531 May 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 215

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6531 May 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 215/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 April 2022 to 30 April 2022(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2022/C 215/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 April 2022 to 30 April 2022(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC, Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 12 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 215/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 April 2022 to 30 April 2022(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2022/C 215/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 April 2022 to 30 April 2022(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC, Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC, Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

12

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1 Thomas H. Adams, Executive Director American Coal Ash Association 15200 E. Girard Ave., Suite 3050 Aurora, CO 80014 720.870.7987 fax – 720.870.7889 www.acaa-usa.org 

# ACAA 

# Memo

To: Mathy Stanislaus, EPA Assistan t Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
From: Thomas Adams
CC: Barry Breen, Matt Hale, John Sager
Date: August 10, 2009
Re: FGD Gypsum and CO2 Reduction

During our meeting of July 24, 2009, Cliff Ramsier, Ag Spectrum Company, made a statement that use of FGD gypsum in agricultural applications results in reduction of carbon dioxide emissions as equipment used to maintain surface porosity is not op erated. Further explanation of this statement was requested. Mr. Ramsier has expanded on his point as follows. There are several projects in the works that quant ify the specific amount of CO2 sequestered by converting from tillage to no-tilla ge production agriculture but the best current estimates are roughly 1⁄2 ton per acre per year. On average this would equal the rate of FDG-gypsum application (1,000#/acre/year – based on rainfall). Rainfall is the primary cause of surface sealing due to soil clays becoming dispersed since rain water does not cont ain adequate electrolytes – FDG-gypsum provides the proper electrolytes. Production agriculture requires the soil surface to remain porous (open to gas exchange) to enable oxidation/reduction reactions to occur. Surface sealing requires re-opening the soil surface with tillage but the su rface porosity can be maintained by regular applications of gypsum. As soon as papers are available the thoroughly quantif ies the amount of sequestration, I will pass them along. For more detail and perhaps a specific status report on these research projects you may want to contact Dr. Darrell Norton, USDA-ARS NSERL lab on the campus at Purdue.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED June 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Mar-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                   Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                                85,594
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      85,594
<PP&E>                                                 3,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (3,194)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        85,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              17,888
<OTHER-SE>                                            61,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          85,972
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         971
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       9,510
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (8,539)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (8,539)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (8,539)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.00)



</TABLE>
§ 21.9725 Progress and conduct. ( a ) *Satisfactory pursuit of program.* In order to receive payments of educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 for pursuit of a program of education, an individual must maintain satisfactory progress. VA will discontinue payments of educational assistance if the individual does not maintain satisfactory progress. Progress is unsatisfactory if the individual does not satisfactorily progress according to the regularly prescribed standards of the institution of higher learning he or she is attending. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3474)
( b ) *Satisfactory conduct.* In order to receive educational assistance for pursuit of a program of education, an individual must maintain satisfactory conduct according to the regularly prescribed standards and practices of the institution of higher learning in which he or she is enrolled. If the individual will no longer be retained as a student or will not be readmitted as a student by the institution of higher learning in which he or she is enrolled, VA will discontinue educational assistance, unless further development establishes that the institution of higher learning's action is wrongfully retaliatory in nature. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3474)
( c ) *Satisfactory attendance.* In order to receive educational assistance for pursuit of a program of education, an individual must maintain satisfactory attendance. VA will discontinue educational assistance if the individual does not maintain satisfactory attendance. Attendance is unsatisfactory if the individual does not attend according to the regularly prescribed standards of the institution of higher learning in which he or she is enrolled. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3474)
( d ) *Reentrance after discontinuance.* ( 1 ) An eligible individual may be reentered following discontinuance because of unsatisfactory attendance, conduct, or progress when either: ( i ) The individual resumes enrollment at the same institution of higher learning in the same program of education and the institution of higher learning has both approved the individual's reenrollment and certified it to VA; or
( ii ) VA determines that— ( A ) The cause of the unsatisfactory attendance, conduct or progress has been removed, and
( B ) The program that the individual now proposes to pursue is suitable to his or her aptitudes, interests, and abilities.
( 2 ) Reentrance may be for the same program, a revised program, or an entirely different program depending on the cause of the discontinuance and the removal of that cause.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3474)
Exhibit 10.82


 


	
   

  	
  July 2, 2003

  



 


 


	
  Tom Higgerson

  c/o Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.

  111 Bauer Drive

  Oakland, NJ 07436

  



 


Dear Tom:


 


As you know, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the
exploration of a possible sale of the Company, although no decision to effect a
sale has been made and there can be no assurance that it will occur or as to
the timing thereof.


 


The Board of Directors believes that your continued service as an
executive and effective participation in the exploration of a possible sale is
important to the Company.  Accordingly,
the Board of Directors has determined that if an unaffiliated purchaser
acquires substantially all of the Company’s outstanding stock or assets through
a negotiated transaction on or before December 31, 2003, and you remain
employed by the Company through the consummation of that transaction, you will
be awarded a special bonus of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).  (If for any reason you are not employed by
the Company when the sale is consummated, you will not be entitled to any
payment under this letter.)


 


The bonus contemplated above is in addition to any other compensation
to which you may be entitled from the Company. 
Nothing in this letter alters any of the terms of your employment with
the Company or creates any obligation on the part of the Company to retain you
as an employee.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Angelica Berrie

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Angelica Berrie

  Chief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 9, 2013

NO. 03-11-00351-CV

Floyd Pleasant Tarvin IV, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PUYREAR, GOODWIN AND FIELD

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court’s 

overruling of appellant’s motion to reinstate: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and 

ordered that trial court’s overruling of appellant’s motion to reinstate is reversed, and that the 

cause is remanded with instructions that the trial court will hold a hearing on appellant's motion 

to reinstate as required by rule 165a of the rules of civil procedure. It is FURTHER ordered that 

the appellee pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that 

this decision be certified below for observance.
#### Adolph Lucker, Respondent, *v.*Max Gross, as one of the Marshals of the City of New York, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, upon a trial had without a jury.

Action for a conversion.

Ignace I. Apfel (Abraham B. Schleimer, of counsel), for appellant.

Hugo S. Mack, for respondent.

*751
      *Per Curiam.*

There was sufficient evidence adduced in the defendant’s behalf to cast upon the plaintiff the burden of. showing the *bona fides*of the alleged transfer of the saloon by one Jacob Feller, to him.

The proof, however, fails to disclose when such sale was made; the consideration, if any, actually given therefor; when the change of possession, if any, took place; and the circumstances surrounding the transaction.

There being thus a failure of proof of these essential facts, the justice clearly erred in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of the case; and in giving judgment for the plaintiff.

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegbrich and O’Gorman, JJ.

*r*

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### § 18b.54 Affidavits.

An affidavit is not inadmissible as such. Unless the presiding officer fixes other time periods affidavits shall be filed and served on the parties not later than 15 days prior to the hearing; and not less than 7 days prior to hearing a party may file and serve written objection to any affidavit on the ground that it is believed necessary to test the truth of assertions therein at hearing. In such event the assertions objected to will not be received in evidence unless the affiant is made available for cross-examination, or the presiding officer determines that cross-examination is not necessary for the full and true disclosure of facts referred to in such assertions. Notwithstanding any objection, however, affidavits may be considered in the case of any respondent who waives a hearing.

[35 FR 10760, July 2, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 10386, Mar. 26, 1986]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          18,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    143,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               305,163
<PP&E>                                         384,566
<DEPRECIATION>                               (152,286)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 854,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,068
<BONDS>                                        437,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,138
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   854,693
<SALES>                                        266,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               266,075
<CGS>                                          153,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                87,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,949
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,707
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
### Sl()-l()()329-()2( ) 

# Jonatha n Marriot t 3872 , Picado rCourt , No . 4 , Jacksonville , F L 32217-303 6 UNfTE O STATE S T : (904 ) 207-934 6 E : JMarrio@liotmail.co m 2 2 Marc h 201 0 Th e Honourabl e Raymon d H . LaHood , Secretar yo f Transportation , Departmen t o f Transportation , 1200 , Ne wJerseyAve , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010- % bea rMr . Secretar

yLaHood , I writ e t o registe rm ysupport an d asi cyo u t o approv e th e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunit yan d join t busines s agreemen t file d b yAmerica n Airline s an d japa n Airlines . Approva l o f thi s applicatio n b yth e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s tha t operat e transpacifi cservic e t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e fligh t schedules , fare s an d servic e a s wel l a s compet e o n equa l footin g wit h th e Sta ran d SItyTea m alliances . You rapprova l wil l hel p creat e a mor e efficien t an d comprehensiv e transpacifi cnetwor k fo rth e carriers ' customers . Thi s actio n wil l have a positiv e impac t o n ai rtrave l b yofferin g customer s more service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensure tha t customers continu e t o benefi t fro m havin g thre e competitiv e ai ralliances . I urg e yo u t o loo k

upo n thi s applicatio n favourabl yan d t o approv e i t swiftly . I than k yo u i n advance fo ryou rconsideration . Your s sincerely , 

# (l^^t^hu-^ ^ Jonatha n Marriot t
EXHIBIT 10.9



                          Natural Resource Group, Inc.
                3000 Youngfield #338, Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80333



January 6, 2003

Mr. Jubal S. Terry
President/CEO
Skyline Resources, Inc.
3000 Youngfield #338
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033

Phone:   303-238-8712
Fax:     303-238-3190

Re:      Pipeline Construction
         Cal Bank Draw/Slater Dome
         Moffat & Routt Counties, Colorado and Carbon County, Wyoming


Dear Jubal:

This Letter Agreement is intended to outline the general terms and conditions
under which Natural Resource Group, Inc. (NRG) shall raise funds and construct a
six inch, sixteen mile pipeline, at the request of Skyline Resources, Inc.,
(Skyline) for the purpose of transporting natural gas from the above caption
prospect, to a Questar transportation line in Baggs, Wyoming.

It is hereby acknowledged that Skyline is the operator of the above captioned
prospect and currently owns a 66.66% interest in the same. To date Skyline has
drilled or caused to be drilled several wells that have proven the existence of
natural gas in the prospect area. Skyline hereby authorizes and grants NRG the
exclusive right to raise private investor funds and construct a 6 inch sixteen
mile natural gas pipeline that will originate in the prospect area and join a
Questar transportation line in Baggs, Wyoming. Currently it is estimated that
the cost to construct the pipeline is approximately $1,631,574. Further, Skyline
hereby agrees to exclusively designate the transportation of its natural gas
through the newly constructed line. The gas will then be sold to Questar at a
rate to be determined at the time of sale of said natural gas.

It is further acknowledged that NRG has begun efforts to raise funds from
private investor sources in order to pay for the construction of the
aforementioned pipeline. It is hereby agreed that investors for the pipeline
will be promoted by NRG on a 1/3rd for a 1/4 basis resulting in a 25% carry in
favor of NRG. Further, it is hereby agreed that upon completion of the pipeline
Skyline will be charged .50 cents per mcf for transportation of its natural gas
through the pipeline until such time the entire capital investment for the
construction of the pipeline has been completely returned to the investors
(payout). Subsequent to payout of the pipeline, Skyline will be charged .25
cents per mcf for transportation of its natural gas through the pipeline.
Further, NRG shall have the right to operate the pipeline and/or the right to
appoint an operator for the pipeline upon its completion and prior to completion
of said pipeline, a mutually acceptable operating agreement will be executed by
parties.

If the foregoing general terms and conditions meet with your approval please
sign and return one copy of this Letter Agreement to me at your earliest
possible convenience.

Letter of Agreement executed this 6th day of January 2003.



NATURAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC.            SKYLINE RESOURCES, INC.


/s/ Paul G. Laird                       /s/ Jubal Terry
------------------                      -----------------------
Paul G. Laird, President                Jubal Terry, President/CEO

<PAGE>