alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### RE: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices Higgins, Cortney to: Mary Kissell 03/30/2011 06:11 PM Cc: Penny Lassiter, Ann Johnson

We have no further comments on the risk assessment. Thanks, Cortney -----Original Message----- From: Kissell.Mary@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kissell.Mary@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:07 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Lassiter.Penny@epamail.epa.gov ; Johnson.Ann@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Fw: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices

----- Forwarded by Mary Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/30/2011 05:07 PM

----- From: Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US To: Mary Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ted Palma/ RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/30/2011 11:32 AM Subject: Fw: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices

Here's the newly revised Risk document with the 2 minor changes from the OMB call. Appendices are the same as previously sent - below.
E (See attached file: Bin 1- 7 source categories Risk document final _3_30_11_.doc) ----- Forwarded by Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/30/2011 11:28 AM

----- From: Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US To: Mary Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Ted Palma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/30/2011 10:28 AM Subject: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices
Assuming there are no changes to the risk document from the 11:00 OMB call, here's the final risk document and appendices.
E(See attached file: Appendix 1.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 2.pdf) (See attached file: Appendix 3.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 4.pdf) (See attached file: Appendix 5.pdf)(See attached file : Appendix 6 .pdf) (See attached file: Appendix 7.pdf)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 7, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00297

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.C.B.R., J.E.R., AND J.J.D.R., CHILDREN

,

From the 225th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 01636 Honorable Genie Wright, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellee ’ s Motion for E xtension of Time to File Brief is hereby G RAN TED. The appellee ’ s brief is deemed filed.

_________________________________ Sandee Brya n Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of August, 2019

.

__________________________________ _ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
No. 64178.

protests 59/2507 and 58/18997 (New York).

#### Teigh, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fiber or hemp articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63552, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                   3,392
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,116                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,116                   3,392
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,291                   3,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              129                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           682                     682
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,480                   3,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,291                   3,849
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,687                   3,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,687)                 (3,247)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,687)                 (3,247)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,687)                 (3,247)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.002)                  (.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.002)                  (.005)





</TABLE>
700

700

650

650

650

700

650

700

600

650

650

700

32

62

32

32

62

32

32

32

O A K C R E E K P K W Y

H A W T H O R N E AV E

S W H IT N A L L A V E

G R A NT PA R K D R

E H O W A R D A V E

32

62

32

32

62

32

32

32

O A K C R E E K P K W Y

H A W T H O R N E AV E

S W H IT N A L L A V E

G R A NT PA R K D R

E H O W A R D A V E

Oak Creek

Oak Cree

k

Oak

Creek

LAKE MICHIGAN

OAK

CREEK

SOUTH

MILWAUKEE

CUDAHY

SAINT

FRANCIS

SAINT

FRANCIS

Carrollville

South Milwaukee Post Office

Grant Park

Golf Course

Cudahy

Water

Works

Wisconsin

Electric

Power Company

South

Milwaukee

WaterWorks

South Milwaukee

Wastewater

Treatment Facility

Warnimont

Golf Course

Texas

Rock

Saint

Matthews

Cemetery

Agudas

Achim

Cemetery

Holy

Sepulchre

Cemetery

Forest Hill

Memorial

Park

Saint

Matthews

Cemetery

Milwaukee

OE E

South

Milwaukee

Racine

North

Milwaukee

Franksville

Greendale

30

47

57

FEET

57'

000

48

45'

47

34

47

4

E

47'

47

4 4

58

00'

370

30"

47

50

53

30"

35 570

47

4 000

45'

47

4

52

55

50' 4

N

30

FEET

47

51

000m

60

4

47

55

36

47

2 E

33

000m

4

49

87°

330

42°

47

000

54

87°

48

31

87°

47

540 38

47

47

4

4

43°

56

59

43°

57'

42° 4

47

49

4 30"

000m

47

30"

50

53

52'30"

55'

56

000m

61

47

29

34

47

47

47

36

87°

51

47'30"

54

58

31

4

N

47

32

52'

47

52

52' 33

37

47

47

4 4

4 52'

00'

61

30"

55'

35

000

47

59

29 4

50'

47

47

37

38

4

47

4

FEET

30"

57

2

60

FEET

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WISCONSIN

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SOUTH MILWAUKEE, WI

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

SOUTH MILWAUKEE QUADRANGLE

WISCONSIN

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 16T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Wisconsin Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 33 ́

10 MILS

3° 31 ́

62 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

16T

DN

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        MAR-31-1997         
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-01-1996         
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1997         
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1      
<CASH>                                        48,258      
<SECURITIES>                                       0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                188,032      
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0      
<INVENTORY>                                  118,418      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             371,753      
<PP&E>                                     7,868,128      
<DEPRECIATION>                             2,879,362      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             5,362,997      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1,049,100      
<BONDS>                                            0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0      
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       7,184     
<OTHER-SE>                                 3,664,624     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               5,362,997     
<SALES>                                    1,874,158    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           4,093,559     
<CGS>                                      1,147,788     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              4,278,298     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (184,739)    
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (71,975)    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (112,764)    
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0     
<CHANGES>                                          0     
<NET-INCOME>                                (112,764)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.16)    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.16)          
                                                      

</TABLE>
sd-656562 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (858) 720.7932 

WOConnor@mofo.com 

12531 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE 

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

92130-2040 

TELEPHONE: 858.720.5100 

FACSIMILE: 858.720.5125 

WWW.MOFO.COM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , DENVER , 

HONG KONG , LONDON , LOS ANGELES , 

NEW YORK , NORTHERN VIRGINIA , 

PALO ALTO , SACRAMENTO , SAN DIEGO , 

SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI , SINGAPORE ,

TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D . C . 

February 12, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Re: FAA Docket ID Nos. FAA-2015-0338, FAA-2015-0334, FAA-2015-0337; Petitions 

of Pro Drones Canada Inc. for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On February 9, 2015, Pro Drones Canada Inc. (Pro Drones) filed three separate petitions for 

exemption to operate unmanned aircraft systems under Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Petitions concerned the MD4-200, MD4-1000, 

and DT-18, and were assigned the following FAA Docket ID Numbers: 

UAS FAA Docket ID

MD4-200 FAA-2015-0338

MD4-1000 FAA-2015-0334

DT-18 FAA-2015-0337

Please update the contact information for Pro Drones related to these petitions as follows: 

Vivien Hériard Dubreuil 

Pro Drones 

President 

www.avyon.com

Tel 718-530-3558

vivien@avyon.com

C/O William V. O’Connor

William D. Janicki 

Joanna L. Simon 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

12531 High Bluff Drive 

San Diego, CA 92130 

Tel (858) 720-5100 

WOConnor@mofo.com 

WJanicki@mofo.com

JoannaSimon@mofo.com

 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

February 12, 2015 

Page Two 

sd-656562 

We look forward to hearing from the FAA regarding Pro Drones’ exemption requests. 

Sincerely, 

William V. O’Connor 

William D. Janicki 

Joanna L. Simon 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 

San Diego, CA 92130-2040 

Telephone: (858) 720-5100 

Facsimile: (858) 720-5125 

woconnor@mofo.com 

wjanicki@mofo.com 

joannasimon@mofo.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. PATTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1893 FCD PAN P

vs.

R.S. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 27, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

complaint.

The amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven,

plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: R.S. Johnson, D. Van

Leer, J. Epperson, D. Peddicord, B. Logan, J. Harwood, and P. Masterson. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01893-FCD-EFB Document 26 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff seven USM-285 forms, one

summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed February 2, 2006.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Seven completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Eight copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed February 2, 2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: March 30, 2006. 

12/mp

patt1893.1amd

Case 2:04-cv-01893-FCD-EFB Document 26 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. PATTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1893 FCD PAN P

vs.

R.S. JOHNSON, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 7 completed USM-285 forms

 8 copies of the February 2, 2006 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01893-FCD-EFB Document 26 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3
Before the Third Division,

December 24, 1941

No. 46743.

#### Protest 862449-G of Meyer & Lange (New York).

Opinion by

Cline J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 'percent' allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material surrounding the hams.
NUMBER 13-14-00031-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

AARON ANTHONY TORRES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 19th District Court

of McLennan County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals by order 

of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a) (West, Westlaw 

through 2013 3d C.S.) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate courts); TEX. GOV'T CODE 

ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (granting the supreme court the 
2

authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to another at any time that there is 

“good cause” for the transfer). This cause is currently before the Court on appellant's

second unopposed extension of time to file the brief. The reporter’s record was filed on 

June 5, 2014, and appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed thirty days thereafter. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). This Court has previously granted appellant one extension 

of time totaling ninety days to file the brief, and appellant now seeks an additional sixty 

days, until December 5, 2014, to file the brief. 

The Court GRANTS appellant’s second unopposed motion to file the brief and 

ORDERS the Honorable Denton B. Lessman to file the brief on or before December 5, 

2014. The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure to timely 

file a brief in this matter. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent 

circumstances. If counsel fails to file the brief within the specified period of time, the 

Court will act appropriately to ensure that appellant's rights are protected. See id. R. 

38.8(b)(4). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

21st day of October, 2014.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE T. SOUZA, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 48, 37 CMR 312

No. 19,872

May 19, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major David J. Passamaneck,*and *Captain Raymond A. DiLuglio*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick,*and *Captain Maurice Jay Kutner*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The decision of the board of review is affirmed. United States v Simpson, 17 USCMA 44, 37 CMR 308.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000053500
<NAME> JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             495
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                        95
<INVENTORY>                                       7569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,790
<PP&E>                                           3,932
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,064
<BONDS>                                          3,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         33
<COMMON>                                           370
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,211
<SALES>                                         22,488
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,488
<CGS>                                           17,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    348
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (370)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
No. 50080.

#### Protest 33679-K of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated and agreed as follows: (1) *31.5-*percent of the Silvatol I ahd 34 percent of the Ultra von WC consist of merchandise subject to a tax of 3 cents per pound; and (2) 68.5 percent of the Silvatol I and 66 percent of the Ultra von WC consist of merchandise not covered by any of the provisions of the internal revenue laws. The protest was therefore sustained as above indicated.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Boyd, Also Known as Robert Moore, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vangard Gilberth, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 951]

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered December 21, 1992, convicting defendants Gilberth and Boyd, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing them, as a second felony offenders, to terms of 3 to 6 years and 21⁄2 to 5 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Subsequent to trial, a surveillance tape which was part of the trial evidence was inadvertently lost. After this Court, on motion, ordered a reconstruction hearing, the parties instead entered into a stipulation with respect to the contents of the tape. Contrary to defendants’ claims, the stipulation, coupled *195with the minutes and other evidence from the trial, provides a sufficient record for this Court to ascertain that their guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(People v Glass,*43 NY2d 283, 286; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). Indeed, the circumstantial evidence of guilt, notably the similarity of modus operandi, was overwhelming.

Jury selection in this case was completed on October 27, 1992. We reject defendant Gilberth’s claim based upon *People v Antommarchi*(80 NY2d 247), because that decision applies only to cases decided *after*that date *(People v Mitchell,*80 NY2d 519, 529).

Appeal from judgment of February 18, 1993 permitted to be withdrawn as per stipulation of September 13, 1995. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.