alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mot ion Denied and Order filed February 20, 2020.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00838

- CV

____________ IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF GARY ST EVEN ACKLEN, II

AND SANDRA EDWARDS A CKLEN

On Appeal from County Court at Law No

. 1

Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- FD

- 2341

ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was originally due November 6, 2019

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. T his court granted the court reporter ’ s last request for
extension of time t o file the reco rd until F ebruary 3, 2020. The court reporter , Lynnette Er ksine, was informed that n o further extension w ould be entertained absent exceptional circumstances

. On February 3, 2020, the court reported filed a request for extension of time unti l March 15, 2020. T he court DENIE S the request and issue s the following order.We order Lynnette Er ksine
, the court repo rter, to file the record in this

appeal with in 10 days of the date of this order

. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsib le for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex.
R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Lynnette Er ksine does not timely file the record as ordered, the Court may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to
determine the reason fo r the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Jus tice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain

.
# OPERATION S 201 0 OC T~ u Aq : 2 1 CIT YnfiMODKST O Ji m liitlt'iiini r

• : l.n ! Sit:. ; P < ) l]. \(•),. ' "•I . /,'.-, . C. l 9-,>:i >

^ ' J \- ^ t

->s^C » /-'..- \ t t:i.;i t 

### h.f.!trjn,! h AuQus l 11,201 0 Ra yLaHood . Secrelar yo fTransportatio n U.S . Depanmsn ' o fTransponatio n •10 0 7 " Street . S W Washington , D C 2059 0 Subject : Smal l Communil yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m

Modest o City-Count yAirport . Modesto , C A Dea rMr . Sscretar>' . I a m w.'iiin g t o shar e m ystron g suppor t fo rth e Modest o City-Count yAirport' s effon s t o acquir e gran t fund s throug h th e Federa l Depanmen i o fTransportation' s Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Program . Thes e fund s ar e intende d t o improv e ai rservic e t o ou rcommunity , b yassistin g a n airlin e i o ad d direc t dail ypassenge rai rservic e betwee n Modest o (MOD ) an d Ponlan d o rSeattle . Existin g passenge rservic e a t MO D consist s o fflight s t o an d fro m Sa n Francisco' s SF O airport . Unfortunately , thes e flight s ar e frequentl ydelaye d du e t o SF O v/eathe rconcern s o rai rtraffi c congestion , resultin g i n travelers ' reluctanc e t o depen d upo n the m fo rtimel yconnection s (se e attachment) . Thi s leve l o fservic e doe s no t mee t th e need s o fth e area' s ai rtravelers . I believ e tha t ther e i s hig h deman d fo rai rservic e t o othe rhub s v^iti i mor e reliabl e flight s an d additiona l trave l options . A s congestio n o n are a roadway s an d gasolin e price s bot h increase , ai rtraveler s ar e burdene d b ylength ydrive s t o distan t airpons . Th e additio n o fa ne whu b wil l provid e a v/elcom e solutio n fo rthos e i n ou rcommunity , a s wel l a s traveler s fro m outlyin g area s ofth e centra l valle yan d th e foothill s region . Commercia l ai rservic e a t Modest o City-Count yAirpo n play s a n importan t rol e i n providin g suppo. Tt o business , government , education , an d leisur e trave l t o an d fro m ou rarea . Futur e gro'A/t h an d vitalit yi n th e Modest o communit ydepends , i n part o n th e airport s abilit yt o mee t th e need s o fexistin g loca l businesses , a s v.'el l a s companie s considerin g th e Centra l Valle ya s a locatio n fo rJhei roperations . Eas e o ftrave l t o an d fro m ou rcommunil yvi a direc t dail ypassenge r servic e i s a n imponan i elemen t i n layin g th e groundv^or k fo rth e community' s future . I a m confiden t yo u v/il l agre e tha n a n investmen t i n thi s projec t a t Modest o City-Count yAirpor t v./il l provid e grea t benefit s fo rtraveler s throughou t th e entir e Centra l Valley . Thi s i s a projec t tha t ha s stron g communit ysuppon , an d wit h you rhelp , ca n provid e substantia l benefit s t o th e community . Fo rthes e reasons , I urg e yo u t o strongl yconside rModest o City-Count yAirpor t a s a worth y recipien t o fth e Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m grant . Sincerel y JI M RIDENOUR , f-.layo r

Ctti^i'i i I'ml !

Modest o City-Count yAirpor t - Smoi i Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Gran t - Augus t 201 0 

### 5 0
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

## Water Analysis
Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 5/2/2012 Sample Number: 121880-001 Date Collected:04/25/2012 07:30 Date Received:4/25/2012 

### 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 320 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 05/01/2012 13:00 

### Sample Number: 121880-002 Date Collected:04/25/2012 07:30 Date Received:4/25/2012 

## 2nd Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 40.9 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 05/01/2012 13:15 

### Sample Number: 121880-003 Date Collected:04/25/2012 07:30 Date Received:4/25/2012 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.6 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 05/01/2012 13:20

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 121880 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis CASTRO, a/k/a Jose Luis Gonzalez Gudiel, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50285.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*765William C. Bottger, Jr., Esq., Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Castro appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and maintaining a place for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(l(B)(ii), (b)(l)(A)(iii) and 856(a)(1), and his bench trial conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Castro contends for the first time on appeal that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it increased his statutory maximum sentence based on facts not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury or admitted by Castro. Because the defendant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 42044.

#### Petition 5746-R of Ernest S. Freudenheim (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Being satisfied that the entry was made without-any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise, the-court granted the petition.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of The PBSJ Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John B. Zumwalt, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  |                                                     
|------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|             |  |  | 
|May 14, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    JOHN B. ZUMWALT, III
|             |  |  |  |     |  |                             | 
|             |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  | John B. Zumwalt, III                                
|             |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  | Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Hill ANTOINE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MELLON BANK, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 04-1326.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Sept. 16, 2005.

Hill Antoine on brief pro se.

Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, LYNCH and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After preliminarily screening this in for-ma pauperis complaint, the district court ordered the pro se appellant, Hill Antoine, to file a more definite statement showing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Antoine responded, and the district court dismissed the suit, finding that “no ground for the exercise of federal jurisdiction” had been suggested. We affirm.

On appeal, Antoine contends that he is bringing his suit under Title VII and state law, and he provides numerous factual details about his claim. He did not present these facts to the district court, although he knew that the court was contemplating dismissing his suit. He does not explain why he failed to take the opportunity the court gave him to present facts bearing on its subject matter jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, affirmance is appropriate. *Malave v. Carney Hospital,*170 F.3d 217, 222 (1st Cir.1999) (stating that it is a “bedrock principle” of appellate practice that matters not raised in the district court cannot be raised on appeal).

*Affirmed.*
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsLight Ion Double-Differential Cross Sections for Space RadiationNeutrons and light ions have been shown to make large contributions to space radiation dose equivalent for realistic shielding scenarios. However, there are considerable uncertainties in the calculation of light ion production. Efficient and accurate calculation of light ion double-differential cross sections are required for input into space radiation transport codes. A thermal proton cross section model is developed which includes proton production from the 3 sources of projectile, central fireball, and target. It is shown that this 3-source model is able to explain the low-momentum, small-angle shoulder seen in proton spectra. Using the coalescence model, the thermal proton model is used to calculate light ion double-differential cross sections for use in space radiation transport codes. The 3-source model is also seen to be essential to explain the light ion shoulders, which are even more pronounced than the proton shoulders. Extensive comparisons between models and experimental measurements are shown and necessary future work is discussed.Document ID20180006313Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsNorbury, John W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 16, 2018Publication DateJuly 1, 2018Subject CategorySpace RadiationReport/Patent NumberL-20937NASA/TP-2018-220077NF1676L-30555Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 089407.01.23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180006313.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 10.25

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------


Loan Agreement signed by and between the Company and  Agricultural  Bank on July
29th, 2005.

Main contents
>>   Contract number: Shenzhen Longgang Nong Jie Zi NO.81101200500000995.
>>   Loan Principal: RMB 50 million;
>>   Loan term: from July 29th, 2005 to January 29, 2006.
>>   Interest rate: fixed rate of 5.2722%;
     |X|  Penalty  interest  rate  for  delayed  repayment:   5.2722%  plus  50%
          *5.2722%;
     |X|  Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.2722% * 2;
>>   Repayment:  interest is payable  monthly  (20th);  principal  is payable on
     January 29, 2006;
>>   Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company;
>>   Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Lender;
>>   Breach  of  contract  penalties:  suspension  of loan  un-provided,  demand
     prepayment of loan principal and interest  before  maturity;  imposition of
     punitive  interest;  compensation for the Lender's expenses incurred due to
     the Company's  breach of contract such as lawyer's fee, travel cost in case
     of litigation, etc.

Terms that have been omitted:  types of the loan; purpose of the loan;  interest
rate of the loan;  clearing of the loan  interest;  condition  precedent  to the
drawing  of the  loan;  rights  and  obligations  of the  borrower;  rights  and
obligations  of the  lender;  prepayment  of the  loan;  guarantee  of the loan;
dispute settlement; miscellaneous; effectiveness; validity; and attention.
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/25 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■
■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●
●
● 

## ★ ● ● ● ●
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3383

___________

Maria O. Vasquez-Leyva, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Immigration

* and Naturalization Service.

Immigration and Naturalization *

Service; United States Department * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Justice, *

*

Respondents. *

___________

 Submitted: March 2, 2000

 Filed: March 8, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Maria O. Vasquez-Leyva petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s

(IJ’s) denial of her request for asylum and withholding of deportation. Upon careful

review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that reasonable, substantial,

and probative evidence in the record as a whole supports the BIA’s determination that

Vasquez-Leyva failed to establish past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear

of future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (Supp. IV 1998) (refugee is alien
-2-

unwilling to return to home country because of “persecution or a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion”); Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551, 553 (8th Cir.

1999) (well-founded fear must be subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable);

Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).

Specifically, we agree that Vasquez-Leyva failed to establish a causal nexus

between her brother’s death in 1978 by unknown persons for unknown reasons, her

undocumented membership in a political party, and anonymous notes and a single

physical encounter with guerillas in 1993. See Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389,

1390 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (alien seeking asylum must show persecution or

feared persecution is based on one of § 1101(a)(42)(A)’s five grounds). We also agree

she did not show her fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable given that

neither she nor her family (who remain in Guatemala) have suffered harm or threats

from the guerillas since 1993, and that the guerillas signed a peace accord in 1996

ending the civil war. See Manivong v. INS, 164 F.3d 432, 433 (8th Cir. 1999)

(affirming in part where petitioner’s father and children remained in home country

without incident); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i) (1999) (if applicant has established past

persecution, well-founded fear of future persecution is presumed unless conditions in

applicant’s country have changed to such extent that applicant no longer has wellfounded fear). We therefore affirm the denial of asylum, as well as the denial of

withholding of deportation, see Kratchmarov, 172 F.3d at 555.

Accordingly, we deny Vasquez-Leyva’s petition.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DIEGO ROVITO,

Appellant,

v.

JAN TINKLEY ROVITO,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1204

[December 30, 2021]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Peter Holden, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

FMCE13-011646 (36).

Jesmany Jomarron and Robin F. Hazel of Farrell Patel Jomarron Law 

PLLC, Miami, for appellant.

Robert J. Merlin of Robert J. Merlin, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Order filed January 24, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00324-CV

____________

CHRIS THYGESEN AND BRUCE W. DERRICK, DERIVATELY ON BEHALF 

OF CLEARMEDIAONE, INC., AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS, Appellants

V.

ROBERT F. STRANGE, JR., ROBERT J. VIGUET JR., AND THOMPSON & 

KNIGHT, L.L.P., Appellees

On Appeal from the 157th Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008-35835

O R D E R

On May 6, 2010, this court abated this appeal because appellee, Robert F. Strange,

petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of Texas, under cause number 09-37417-H1-11. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. 

Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, the court 

has learned that the bankruptcy case was closed on December 14, 2011. The parties failed 

to advise this court of the bankruptcy court action.
2

Unless within 20 days of the date of this order, any party to the appeal files a 

motion demonstrating good cause to retain this appeal, this appeal will be reinstated and 

dismissed for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM
2 4. While the Department of Health would be a signat ory for the AOC, would that then bind the Board of Water Supply and its customers to the AOC as well, and preclude the parties from seeking reimbursement for expenses that may be incurred: (1 ) to clean-up contaminated water and (2) to pursue alternatives to take the place of c ontaminated water that is deemed pr ohibitive to treat? If so, then we

feel that the Board of Water Supply needs to be a part y to the AOC discussions/development to represent the Oahu community's interests. In addi tion, federal reimbursement of expenses for clean-up and water source alternatives need to be required in the AOC . Responsibility for increased costs must be borne by the party responsible for causing the problem, and not by innocent Oahu citizens. Finally, we object to the s hort 30-day time period for your agency to receive comments on such a critical matter. As pointed out by the Board of Water Supply in their testimony dated June 18, 2015, not all information was made available until midway th rough the comment period. Therefore, we urge that an extension be granted, until July 31, 2015, to allow the Board of Water Supply and concerned citizens who are only now becoming aware of the issue to provide comments, and he lp reassure that this is a meaningful, transparent

p rocess. We respectfully ask that you consider our comments and recommendations. Thank you.
#### Sammie WHITE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 73029.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Sept. 1, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 26, 1998.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SIMON, P.J., and CRANE and MOONEY, JJ.

*24ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sammie White (Movant) appeals from the judgment dismissing his Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon and received a suspended imposition of sentence with two years of probation. He concedes that he was released from his probation and was neither convicted of a felony nor delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections. Rule 24.035 provides a remedy only for persons “convicted of a felony on a plea of guilty and delivered to the custody of the department of corrections.... ” Unless these conditions are met, the motion court is without jurisdiction to entertain the motion. *Barna v. State,*918 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); *Hopkins v. State,*802 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Mo.App. W.D.1991). Therefore, we conclude the motion court’s dismissal is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value and we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).