alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# OFCM Directory of Atmospheric Transport and DiffusionConsequence Assessment Models

Download AcrobatReader to view PDF files

**Cover**

**ICMSSR Personnel**

**Title Page**

**Foreword**

**Table of Contents**

**JAG Personnel**

**CHAPTERS**

**Chapter One: Introduction**

**Chapter Two: Methodology**

**APPENDICES**

**APPENDIX A**: Consequence Assessment Models

- ADAM
- AFTOX
- AI-RISK
- ALOHA
- AQPAC
- ARAC (MATHEW/DPIC)
- ARCON96
- AXAIRQ
- AXAOTHER
- BNLGPM
- CALPUFF
- CAP88
- CASRAM
- CATS
- CCSL
- CFAST
- COMPBRN III
- CONTAIN
- COSYMA
- CTDMPLUS
- DEGADIS
- DOSEEP
- EMGRESP
- ERAD
- ETMOD
- FEM3C
- FIRAC
- FIRAC/FIRIN
- FPETOOL
- GASFLOW
- GAUS 1
- GENII
- GXQ
- HARM II
- HGSYSTEM
- HOTMAC/RAPTAD
- HOTSPOT
- HPAC
- HRW
- HYSPLIT
- INPUFF
- KBERT
- MACCS2
- MAILS
- MARSS
- MELCOR
- OMEGA/ADM v.3.5
- PAVAN
- PIKE
- PUFF-PLUME
- RSAC-5
- RTVSM
- SCIPUFF
- SLAB
- SUDU
- TRAC RA/HA
- TRIAD 2-1
- TSCREEN
- UFOTRI
- VAFTAD
- VDI
- VENTSAR XL
- VLSTRACK
- VULCAN

**APPENDIX B**: Model Acquisition Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX I: MODEL ACQUISITION

**APPENDIX C**: Model Pedigree and Quality Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX II: MODEL PEDIGREE AND QUALITY

**APPENDIX D**: Model Platforms Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX III: MODEL PLATFORMS

**APPENDIX E**: Chemical Source Term Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX IV: MODEL ATTRIBUTES  ChemicalConsequence Source Terms

**APPENDIX F**: Radiological Source Term Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX V: MODEL ATTRIBUTES  RadiologicalConsequence Source Terms

**APPENDIX G**: Weapon Source Terms Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX VI: MODEL ATTRIBUTES  WeaponsConsequence Source Terms

**APPENDIX H**: Dispersion Submodel Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX VII: DISPERSION MODELS

**APPENDIX I**: Transport Submodel Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX VIII: TRANSPORT SUBMODELS

**APPENDIX J**: Fire Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX IX: FIRE SUBMODELS

**APPENDIX K**: Energetic Events Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX X: ENERGETIC EVENTS SUBMODELS

**APPENDIX L**: Chemical Health Consequences Extract

- EXTRACT MATRIX XI: CHEMICAL HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS

**APPENDIX M**: Radiological Health Consequences Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX XII: RADIOLOGICAL HEALTHCONSIDERATIONS

**APPENDIX N**: Weapons Health Consequences Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX XIII: WEAPONS HEALTHCONSIDERATIONS

**APPENDIX O**: Chemical Countermeasures Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX XIV: CHEMICAL EFFECTS ANDCOUNTERMEASURES

**APPENDIX P**: Radiological Countermeasures Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX XV: RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ANDCOUNTERMEASURES

**APPENDIX Q**: Weapons Countermeasures Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX XVI: WEAPONS EFFECTS ANDCOUNTERMEASURES

**APPENDIX R**: Physical Features-I Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX XVII: PHYSICAL FEATURES OF MODELSI - PART A
- EXTRACT MATRIX XVII: PHYSICAL FEATURES OF MODELSI - PART B

**APPENDIX S**: Physical Features–II Extract Table

- EXTRACT MATRIX XVIII: PHYSICAL FEATURES OF MODELSII

**APPENDIX T**: Points of Contact

- Additional Models and Points of Contact

**APPENDIX U**: Acronyms

- Acronyms

----

Publications ListHome
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00354-CV

RUBEN TADEO GARCIA AND 

VICTOR ORTEGA NUNEZ,

Appellants

v.

GEICO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23-C-3050

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal was referred to mediation on December 6, 2023. Pursuant to the order 

referring the appeal to mediation, appellants were ordered to file a notice with the Clerk 

of this Court within 14 days from the date of the referral order which either identified an 

agreed-upon mediator or stated that the parties were unable to agree upon a mediator. 

Because no notice had been received, the Court requested a status report from appellants 
Garcia v. GEICO Sec. Ins. Co. Page 2

within 14 days from the date of the Order. The Court warned that if no status report was

timely received, this appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b),(c). 

In response, appellants’ motion to dismiss was filed on February 26, 2024. In the 

motion, appellants assert the parties resolved the underlying dispute, and a Release of

Judgment has been filed in the trial court. Thus, they further assert, the appeal is no 

longer necessary and should be dismissed.

Accordingly, appellants’ motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith 

Motion granted

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 7, 2024

[CV06]
# C_2007142EN.01000701.xml

| 27.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 June 2007

(2007/C 142/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,346 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 165,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4415 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67315 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2816 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6547 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 84,58 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,01 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5837 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,696 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,77 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7973 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,1764 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,947 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7827 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5849 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4402 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5164 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7528 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0697 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 246,8 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,6596 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,251 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3085 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 221,68 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6794 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,32 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,714 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,207 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,346

JPY

Japanese yen

165,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4415

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67315

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2816

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6547

ISK

Iceland króna

84,58

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,01

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5837

CZK

Czech koruna

28,696

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,77

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7973

RON

Romanian leu

3,1764

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,947

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7827

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5849

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4402

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5164

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7528

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0697

KRW

South Korean won

1 246,8

ZAR

South African rand

9,6596

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,251

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3085

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 221,68

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6794

PHP

Philippine peso

62,32

RUB

Russian rouble

34,714

THB

Thai baht

43,207

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
(Reap. Dec. 9216)

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. W 149.

*535(Decided August 29, 1958)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement presently before the court raises the question of the proper dutiable value of certain piano accordions imported from Italy and entered at the port of Minneapolis, Minn.

This case is before me on an agreed set of facts which establishes that the proper basis for appraisement is the export value under section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and that such statutory value is $42 each, United States currency, net packed.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d), *supra,*is the proper basis of value of the merchandise in question and that such statutory value is $42 each, United States currency, net packed, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Notices]               
[Page 43941]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-52]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, August 21, 2010.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-18491 Filed 7-23-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
(Reap. Dec. 9289)

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 10463, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1959)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule were submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel to the effect that the foreign and export values of the merchandise involved in this case, within the meaning of those terms, as defined in section 402 (c) and (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as existing at the time of importation of the merchandise involved in these cases, was the appraised value, less 12 per centum, plus *4%*per centum.

On the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue, and that such value in each case was the appraised value, less 12 per centum, plus 4% per centum.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 50587.

#### Protests 986918-G, etc., of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial a witness testified that certain items of the merchandise consist of hats similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 47291. Thereafter, a stipulation was filed wherein it was agreed that certain items consist of hats similar in all,material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), and other items consist of knotted hemp hats the same as those involved in Abstract 46497. Upon the established facts'and following the authorities cited the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8840 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to modify the rules with 

respect to the consideration in the House of Representatives of any 

resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than three calendar days until the House of Representatives has approved annual 

appropriation bills, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2024 

Mr. EDWARDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to modify 

the rules with respect to the consideration in the House 

of Representatives of any resolution providing for an 

adjournment period of more than three calendar days 

until the House of Representatives has approved annual 

appropriation bills, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Do Our Job Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8840 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMPLETION OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AC2 TION ON REGULAR APPROPRIATION BILLS. 

3 Section 309 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

4 (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘It shall not be in order’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL—It shall not be in 

7 order’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘to consider any resolution pro9 viding’’ and inserting ‘‘to consider any resolution or 

10 motion providing’’; 

11 (3) by striking ‘‘during the month of July’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘or for the House to convene solely in a 

13 pro forma session for a period of more than 7 cal14 endar days during the period beginning July 1 and 

15 ending December 31’’; and 

16 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT18 ATIVES.—It shall not be in order in the House of Rep19 resentatives to consider a rule or order that waives the 

20 application of subsection (a). 

21 ‘‘(c) QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION.—As disposition 

22 of a point of order under subsection (b), the Chair shall 

23 put the question of consideration with respect to the rule 

24 or order, as applicable. 

25 ‘‘(d) DEBATE AND INTERVENING MOTIONS.—A ques26 tion of consideration under this section shall be debatable 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8840 IH

1 for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point of order 

2 and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise 

3 be decided without intervening motion.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 Annual Report of Energy Edge Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:   (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.     Dated:  April 15, 2011 By:/s/ Robert Holdsworth Robert Holdsworth Acting Principal Financial Officer (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
Before the Third Division,

December 9, 1948

No. 52727. —

protest 138925-K (Los Angeles).

#### Air Express International, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision, the protest was overruled.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Mark S. Robinow, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kona Grill, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                       /s/ Mark S. Robinow   Mark S. Robinow   *Chief Financial Officer*   Date: August 2, 2007
No. 55381.

#### The United States Leather Co. *v.*United States,

protests 65816-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Francis E. Cole, *Appellant, v.*Jay M. Cole, Respondent.

Order appealed from affirmed.
# C_2007202EN.01000301.xml

| 30.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/3

---

Recruitment notice PE/109/S

(2007/C 202/03)

The European Parliament is organising the following selection procedure:

PE/109/S — Temporary staff — Website administrators (AD5).

PE/109/S

This selection procedure requires a level of education that corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by an officially recognised diploma relevant to the job description.

No professional experience is required.

This recruitment notice is published only in English, French and German. The full text is in Official Journal C 202 A in the three languages.

---
March 24, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.B., A MINOR CHILD

NO. 14-13-00718-CV 

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the Order of Dismissal, signed May 16, 2013, 

was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find 

the trial court erred by dismissing appellant, Cedrick Brent’s, request for 

reimbursement or offset of certain child support relative to a claim for arrearages 

by appellee, Shanda Elaine Mays. We therefore order that the portion of the order

that dismissed appellant, Cedrick Brent’s, request for reimbursement or offset of 

certain child support relative to a claim for arrearages by appellee, Shanda Elaine 

Mays, is REVERSED and ordered severed and REMANDED for proceedings in 

accordance with this court’s opinion.

Further, we find no error in the remainder of the order, dismissing appellant, 

Cedrick Brent’s, request for modification and retroactive child support and order it 

AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Cedrick Brent, and appellee, Shanda Elaine Mays, to 

each pay one half of all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Case No. 8,545.

#### LOUTREL v. MELLOR.

[The case reported under above title in 1 O. G. 4S, is the same as Case No. 0,030.3
No. 63189.

#### Schenley Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 76006-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, CD. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2120

In Re: MELVIN LEE LUCKY, a/k/a Melvin Lee Luckey,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(5:15-ct-03237-FL)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Lee Lucky, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Lee Lucky petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order directing the district court to commute his sentence 

and order his immediate release from imprisonment. We conclude 

that Lucky is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 

(4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for 

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353

(4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Lucky is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
#### Mary V. Ayres, *Respondent, v.*James Morgan and another, *as Executors, etc., Appellants, Impleaded, etc.*

— Judgment modified as directed in opinion, without costs to either party. Opinion by Daniels, J.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 31, 2019

Nos. 04-18-00764-CR, 04-18-00765-CR, 04-18-00774-CR, 04-18-00775-CR, 04-18-00777-CR,

04-18-00778-CR, 04-18-00779-CR, 04-18-00780-CR, 04-18-00781-CR, 04-18-00782-CR,

04-18-00783-CR, 04-18-00784-CR, 04-18-00785-CR, 04-18-00786-CR, 04-18-00787-CR,

04-18-00788-CR, 04-18-00789-CR, 04-18-00790-CR, 04-18-00791-CR, 04-18-00792-CR,

04-18-00794-CR, & 04-18-00795-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Mark Anthony GONZALEZ, Agustin Perez, Jr., Gabriel Rene Perez, Jeremias Aguilar, Jr.,

Martin M. Rios, Jr., Steven Negrete, Fernando Jefte Mata, Eloy Canales Romo, Francisco

Antonio Rodriguez, Raymond Ryan Robinson, Winston Robert Modisette, Courtney Marie

Seilhammer, and Ahmed Mamuth

Appellees

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 10041CR, 10056CR, 10122CR, 10134CR, 9711CR, 9712CR, 9892CR,

10123CR, 10054CR, 10138CR, 10187CR, 9964CR, 10185CR, 10047CR, 10074CR,

10115CR, 10116CR, 10117CR, 10118CR, 10125CR, 10195CR, 10196CR

Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding

ORDER

By order dated May 8, 2019, the State was ordered to show cause in writing by May 22, 

2019, why these appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On May 29, 2019, the 

State filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file its response to the show cause order. 

The motion is GRANTED. The State’s response to the show cause order must be filed no later 

than June 5, 2019. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE 

DISFAVORED.

It is so ORDERED on May 31, 2019.
 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court