alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M A N D A T E

TO THE 156TH DISTRICT COURT of BEE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 2nd day of July,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MELISSA ANN MERCER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00150-CR (Tr.Ct.No. B-09-2167-0-CR-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by this

Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 22nd day of October, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
Comment on:

EPA’s Review of Air Regulations

Affecting the Oil and Natural Gas Indu
Introductions

QEPA 

 Environmental Health Consulting Firm Focus is Risk Communication

Key Personnel

 Dollis Wright (CDC, ATSDR, NIOSH, S Tony Havics ( AIHA, WEEL, ASTM, E5
Purpose

Answer the question

“Are oil and gas exploration and prod

activities impacting human heal
Approach

Fill the data gaps:

 Are there confirmed exposures Is there a potential for exposure

Pathway Analysis Risk Assessm

Actual Exposures Projected Exp
Pathway Analysis

 Reviewed TEDEX Report Attended stakeholder meetings Literature review of ATSDR Documents Literature review of Occupational Exposures Reviewed Garfield County Air Quality Study Reviewed CDPHE Screening Risk Assessment Reviewed CDPHE Health Assessment Reviewed Complaint Log (Garfield Co, COGCC, Indu Requested Data from COGA

 Water well data Assisted in design of COGA pit solids and fluids study Assisted in design of Air sampling study
Literature Review ATSD

Summary 29 sites reviewed 1 urgent public health hazard 2 air concerns

QEPA general conclusions

 Completed pathways essential to 

operations posing a health hazard

 Many written in response to citizen 

concerns about Oil & Gas activities.

None confirmed their concerns
Literature Review of Occupati

Studies

Summary

 NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations Society for Petroleum Engineers E

-Library

 NIOSH Oil & Gas program office

QEPA general conclusion

 No specific chronic illness associated with oil & g

activities other than silicosis

 API 27 year study, 19,000 past and current employe

no evidence of increased cancer incidence

 Additional studies are needed
Comment

 Long term occupational studies

 Various routes of exposure No indication of chronic disease

 Public Health Assessments

 Various health concerns No correlation of illness or disease and site chemica

 Community Health Risk Analysis 

 Risk are posed under certain conditions –  No Health crisis – results can help plan for the futu
COGA Risk Assessm

 Pit Solids, Fluids and Air in Colorado Energy 

 Rigorous QA/QC requirements 50 Active drilling and fracing sites  NELAC certified laboratory >99% data usability
Air Study

 EPA protocols  3rd party accredited independent laborato EPA approved analytical methodsSamples upwind and downwind from drilling pads downwind moved every hour
Air Sampling

 Downwind site samples were not statistic

different from upwind (in other words no additional contribution from the pad ope

 Hazard Quotients <1 Reasonable maximum estimated (RME) risk do

from the pads for Benzene was 1.8E-5 (18 in a 

 Risk – Estimated Exposure dose below ATSD

observed exposure level

No significant chronic health risk
Final Comment

Encourage EPA to:

 Support

 additional environmental investgations Community health education

 Determine Real vs. Perceived issues Use sound science as a basis for regulations
Benzene Air Risk

CO 2006

COGA (all)

EPA Urban

Garfield

STUDY

1.0

10.0

100.0

Concentration (ppb)

EPMRMRMAAV

Chronic M

3 ppb

Acute MRL

9 ppb

245-400 me

ppb filling 

tank
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RUSSELL E. SLY, Jr., Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 628, 37 CMR 248

No. 19,998

April 21, 1967

*Lieutenant Colonel Frederick H. Campbell,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Ernest B. Wright,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The accused stands convicted of violating Article 121 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921, by wrongfully appropriating a motor vehicle, which the owner had turned over to him for washing and waxing.

At trial, evidence was admitted to the effect that a general officer observed the accused driving the vehicle *629in “officers’ country” at a speed substantially in excess of the posted limit.1 The general reported the matter to the Provost Marshal at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, and a speeding citation was issued for the-accused. No instruction was given to the court-martial as to the limited purpose for which this evidence of other misconduct was received. The absence of such an instruction is error. United States v Gewin, 14 USCMA 224, 34 CMR 4.

Evidence of accused’s guilt of the misappropriation offense is compelling. Part of the evidence consists of an admission by the accused, in his trial testimony, that he drove the car off the station to Wilmington, North Carolina, knowing at the time no “provision to drive to Wilmington” was “included” within the terms of his “agreement to wash and wax the car.” It is, therefore, apparent that the failure to give the limiting instruction was not prejudicial as to the findings of guilty. So far as the sentence is concerned, ,a ticket for speeding hardly seems the kind of misconduct that would incline court members to adjudge a more severe sentence than that justified only by the circumstances of the offense found and the background of the accused. However, the manifest interest of a general officer may have distinguished the incident as one meriting more than passing attention. See United States v Gewin, supra. There is, therefore, at least a fair risk that the evidence might improperly have been considered by the court members in their deliberations on the sentence. United States v Kirby, 16 USCMA 517, 37 CMR 137.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for resubmission to the board of review for reassessment of the sentence in light of this opinion. ■

1

 The officer was not in the chain of command of the accused. Cf. United States v Gordon, 1 USCMA 255, 2 CMR 161.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

American Premium Investments, :

 LLC, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. : Case No. 2:11-cv-167

 :

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

Midwest Real Estate : Magistrate Judge Kemp

Consultants, LLC, et al., : 

Defendants. :

ORDER

On February 23, 2011, plaintiff filed this action. After obtaining service of process on

the defendants, it filed a motion for a default judgment. However, it did not first obtain an entry

of default.

As Judge Frost of this Court explained in Hickman v. Burchett, 2008 WL 926609, *1

(S.D. Ohio April 04, 2008), 

Plaintiff’s request is procedurally flawed.

The docket fails to indicate that, prior to seeking a default judgment,

Plaintiff first obtained from the clerk an entry of default as contemplated by Rule

55(a). An entry of default is distinct from entry of a default judgment. O.J.

Distrib., Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., 340 F.3d 345, 353 (6th Cir.2003); see

also 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 2692 (3rd ed. 2003); S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 55.1(b). By

asking for a default judgment, Plaintiff has failed to follow the sequential

procedure set forth in the Rule. See Brantley v. Runyon, No. C-1-96-842, 1997

WL 373739, at *1 (S .D. Ohio June 19, 1997) (“In order to obtain a default

judgment under Rule 55(b)(2), there must first be an entry of default as provided

by Rule 55(a).”). See also Webster Indus., Inc. v. Northwood Doors, Inc., 244

F.Supp.2d 998, 1003 (N.D.Iowa 2003) (“‘entry of default under Rule 55(a) must

precede grant of a default judgment under Rule 55(b)’“ (quoting Hayek v. Big

Brothers/Big Sisters of America, 198 F.R.D. 518, 520 (N.D.Iowa 2001))); Lee v.

Brotherhood of Maint. of Way Employees-Burlington N. Sys. Fed'n, 139 F.R.D.

376, 380 (D.Minn.1991) (“an entry of default is a prerequisite to a default

judgment under Rule 55(b)”). The Court therefore cannot enter a default

judgment under Rule 55(b). Cf. O.J. Distrib., Inc., 340 F.3d. at 352 (“ ‘Rule 55

Case: 2:11-cv-00167-ALM-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/28/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
permits the clerk to enter a default when a party fails to defend an action as

required. The court may then enter default judgment.’ “ (Emphasis added))

(quoting Weiss v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 283 F.3d 790, 794 (6th

Cir.2002)).

For the same reasons, the motion for default judgment filed in this case is premature. 

That motion (#5) is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its reassertion should the

plaintiff first obtain an entry of default against the defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: June 28, 2011

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00167-ALM-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/28/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A170
**UNITED STATES**  **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY REGION**  **IX**

**Daisy Todachennie**  **P. 0.**  **Box 100147**  **Aneth, UT**  **84510-0147 75**  **Hawthorne Street**  **San Francisco,**  **CA 94105**  **September 30,**  **2016 In**  **Reply Refer** **To: AIR-3** 

**NU 05-01** 

**Subject: McElmo**  **Creek Unit**  **Oil Production**  **Facility Final**  **PSD Permit**  **Decision Dear**  **Ms. Todachennie:**  **You are**  **receiving this**  **letter for**  **one of** **the following**  **reasons: 1)**  **You provided**  **timely written**  **comments or**  **oral testimony**  **to the** **U.S. Environmental**  **Protection Agency**  **(EPA) regarding**  **the proposed**  **Clean Air**  **Act Prevention**  **of Significant**  **Deterioration (PSD)**  **permit amendment**  **for the McElmo**  **Creek Unit**  **Oil Production**  **Facility (MCU** **Facility), an**  **existing oil**  **and gas**  **production operation**  **that is**  **owned, in**  **partnership with**  **Navajo Nation**  **Oil and**  **Gas Company,**  **and operated**  **by the**  **Resolute Natural**  **Resources Company**  **(Resolute); or**  **2) You** **requested notice**  **of the** **final permit** **decision. Enclosed**  **please find**  **the final**  **permit decision,**  **which includes**  **the final**  **PSD permit**  **amendment and**  **our responses**  **to public**  **comments, and**  **our notice**  **announcing the**  **final permit decision. The**  **final PSD**  **permit amendment,**  **our responses**  **to public**  **comments, and**  **other key documents**  **relevant to**  **the final**  **permit are**  **also available**  **through a**  **link at**  **our website,**  **http://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/p revention-significant-deterioration-psd-permits-issued**  **region-9 ,**  **or at**  **http://www.regulations.gov (search:**  **EPA-R09-0AR-2014-0785). In**  **accordance with**  **40 CFR 124.15,**  **this permit**  **will become**  **effective thirty**  **(30) days**  **after the**  **EPA has**  **provided notice**  **of the**  **final decision,**  **unless the**  **permit is**  **timely appealed.**  **Pursuant to**  **40 CFR**  **124.19, any** **person who**  **commented on**  **the proposed**  **permit or** **participated in**  **the public**  **hearing on**  **the proposed**  **permit may appeal**  **the decision**  **and permit**  **conditions to**  **the Environmental**  **Appeals Board**  **(EAB) within 30**  **days after**  **the EPA**  **has provided notice**  **of the**  **final permit**  **decision. Any**  **person who failed to**  **file comments**  **or failed**  **to participate**  **in the**  **public hearing**  **on the**  **proposed PSD** **permit revision**  **may file an**  **appeal with the**  **EAB only**  **regarding changes from**  **the proposed**  **to the**  **final permit**  **decision. If** **you have**  **any questions**  **about this**  **final action,**  **please do**  **not hesitate**  **to contact**  **Shaheerah**

**Kelly of** **the Air**  **Permits Office**  **at (415)**  **947-4156 or** **r9airpermits@epa.gov .** 

**Enclosure**

**2 Sincerely,** 

**Chief, Permits**  **Office Air**  **Division**
PUBLIC LAW 110–74—AUG. 9, 2007 121 STAT. 723 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1099: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

June 22, considered and passed Senate. 

July 30, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–74 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals employed 

by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission eligible to obtain 

Federal health insurance. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. HEALTH INSURANCE. 

Section 8901(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; and 

(3) by inserting before the matter following subparagraph 

(I) the following: 

‘‘(J) an individual who is employed by the Roosevelt 

Campobello International Park Commission and is a citizen 

of the United States,’’. 

Approved August 9, 2007. 

Aug. 9, 2007 

[S. 1099]
Exhibit 10.8.2


 


Addendum No. 2 to Note


 


March 15, 2022


  


The promissory note, made by CorpHousing Group
Inc., formerly Corphousing LLC (“Maker”) as of October 15, 2021, in the principal sum of $2,000,000 to THA Family II Limited
Liability Company (“Holder”) is hereby modified as follows:


 


		1.	Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Note, Maker and Holder agree that upon consummation of an initial public
offering of the common stock of Maker for gross proceeds of $10 million or more (an “IPO”), at the closing of the IPO, 50%
of all principal and interest on this Note (together with a prepayment premium on such portion of the principal) shall be converted into
the shares of common stock and Warrants (and any other securities) comprising the units sold in the IPO, at a conversion price equal to
80% of the per-unit offering price in the IPO.



 


		2.	For clarity, all original prepayment premiums of 20% of principal prepaid as prescribed by the original Note are reinstated and apply.



 





	 	CORPHOUSING GROUP INC.




 





	 	By:	/s/ Brian L. Ferdinand
	 	Title:	CEO




 





	 	THA FAMILY II LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY




 





	 	By:	/s/ Andrea Ferdinand
	 	Title:	Manager
# C_2016078EN.01001103.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/11

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems v College bescherming persoonsgegevens

(Case C-192/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 078/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

1

---
Case: 2:12-cv-01194-EAS-EPD Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T21:17:12-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# C_2015205EN.01001602.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público

(Case C-151/15)

(2015/C 205/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministério Público

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| i) | Is the concept of the communication of works to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) to be interpreted as encompassing the transmission of broadcast works in commercial premises such as bars, cafes, restaurants or other such establishments with similar characteristics, via television receiving apparatus, where the transmission of such works is amplified by speakers or amplifiers, thus constituting, in that context, a new use of copyright-protected works? |
| --- | --- |

i)

Is the concept of the communication of works to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) to be interpreted as encompassing the transmission of broadcast works in commercial premises such as bars, cafes, restaurants or other such establishments with similar characteristics, via television receiving apparatus, where the transmission of such works is amplified by speakers or amplifiers, thus constituting, in that context, a new use of copyright-protected works?

1

| ii) | Does the use of speakers and/or amplifiers, that is, technical means other than television broadcast reception equipment, to amplify broadcast sound have any affect on the answer to the first question? |
| --- | --- |

ii)

Does the use of speakers and/or amplifiers, that is, technical means other than television broadcast reception equipment, to amplify broadcast sound have any affect on the answer to the first question?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

1

---
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Marcela Ann Barela, * From the 35 th District Court

of Brown County

Trial Court No. CR 23767

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 11 4

- CR * April 25 , 2019

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Stretcher, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
No. 46325.

#### Protest 971986-G of Quon & Quon Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

In accordance-with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is similar to certain of the articles the subject of Abstract 45722 it was held dutiable as table or household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed. ■
Exhibit 10.1

  

  

  

  
    

    

    

    

    FIRST AMENDMENT TO

    THE NUWELLIS, INC.

    2021 INDUCEMENT PLAN

    

    

    The Nuwellis, Inc. 2021 Inducement Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended in the following respects, effective April 21, 2022, in accordance with Section 2(b)(vi) of the Plan.

    

    

    The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence:

    

    

    “Subject to Section 9(a) relating Capitalization Adjustments, the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be
      issued pursuant to Awards will not exceed 285,000 shares (the “Share Reserve”).”
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act





I, Stuart Ducote, Chief Executive Officer of United Mortgage Trust (the "Company"), have executed this certification for furnishing to the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing with the Commission of the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"). I hereby certify that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the end of that period.


UNITED MORTGAGE TRUSTDate: November 15, 2010
By
/s/ Stuart DucotePresident
#### Lydia H. Mitchell *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Automobiles—Trolley *cars*— Collision *with automobile*— Case *for jury*— Verdict *for plaintiff.*

In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile and trolley car, the case was for the jury, and a verdict for plaintiff- will be sustained where the evidence of the plaintiff was that her machine was struck by a trolley car, which was approximately 260 feet away when she first drove on the tracks of the defendant company, in attempting to extricate her machine from between two parked automobiles.

*435Argued October 24, 1924.

Appeal, No. 129, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Feb. T., 1923, No. 50, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Lydia H. Mitchell v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. ¡Before Crane, J.

From the record it appeared that the plaintiff was the occupant of an automobile which she had parked along a city street. While attempting to extricate her machine from traffic, she was struck by a street car proceeding in the same direction. According to the testimony of the plaintiff her automobile crossed the rails of the defendant company when the street car was about 260 feet away, and she was five minutes on the track before her automobile was struck. This was denied by the defendant, and the case was submitted to the jury.

Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $600, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Errors assigned*among others, were refusal of defendant’s motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial.

*Lewis C. Cassidy,*for appellant,

cited: Kline v. Tractor Co., 4 Erie 51; Randall v. Phila. R. T. Co., 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 531; Cornell v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 54 Pa. Superior Ct. 230. .

*J. Verner Harold,*and with him, *Graham,*& *Garaguso,*for appellee,

cited: Byrne v. Ry. Co., 19 Pa. Superior Ct. 531; Waechter v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 129; Clayton v. Traction Co., 3 Pa. Superior Ct. 107; Huth v. Cent. R. of N. J., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 517; Fisher v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 262; Ingraham v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., Ib. 132.

*436February 27, 1925:

Per Curiam,

The defendant appeals from a verdict recovered against it for $600, asserting that the verdict was against the evidence and against the law. Its motion for a new trial was dismissed, and judgment was entered on the verdict.

We are not favored with an opinion by the trial judge, but after a careful examination of all the evidence and the charge to the jury, we are satisfied that the court rightly refused the defendant’s point for binding instructions, and that the disputed facts were fairly submitted to the only tribunal provided by law to dispose of them.

The judgment is affirmed.