alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-83 -82 -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76

37 38 39 40 41


### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 05/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.03 N 77.49 WMeters AGL
Order entered December 2 1 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 0 1162
- CR
JOHANAN JOHN FOLSOM , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 2 0 3rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 11
- 58786
- P 

### O RDER
T he Court REINSTATES this appeal. On October 11, 2012, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s record had not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue th e appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel Allen Fishburn; (3) Karren Jones and Yolanda Atkins are the court reporter who recorded the proceedings; (4) Ms. Jones has finished her portion of the record; and (5) Ms. Atkins required ten days from the December 14, 2012 hearing to finish her portion of the record. We note that on December 17, 2012, Ms. Jones tendered the record of the February 2, 2012 suppression hearing. That volume is labeled volume 3 of 3. We ORDER thi s volume of the reporter’s record filed as of the date of this order.We ORDER court reporter Yolanda Atkins to file, by JANUARY 2, 2013 her portion of the reporter’s record, including a Master Index that includes the suppression hearing. Because the reco rd is already more than four months overdue, no further extensions will be granted. If the reporter’s record is not filed by the date specified, we will order that Yolanda Atkins not sit as a court reporter until the record is filed.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Teresa Hawthorne, Presiding Judge, 203rd Judicial District Court; court reporter Karren Jones; court reporter Yolanda Atkins; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
Opinion issued January 8, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00001-CV

———————————

IN RE ELIZABETH THOMAS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Elizabeth Thomas, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

requesting that we compel the trial court to vacate its (1) December 14, 2018 notice 

setting a status conference and (2) December 17, 2018 order setting a show cause 

hearing for sanctions in the underlying case.

1 We deny the petition. Thomas’s motion 

 

1 The underlying case is James Allen, et al. v. MTH Lending Group L.P., cause 

number 2017-76078, pending in the 127th District Court of Harris County, Texas, 

the Honorable R.K. Sandill presiding.
2

for sanctions is denied. Thomas’s motion for an emergency stay of proceedings and 

all other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, Justice Goodman, and Justice Countiss.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Opportunities for Women in Legal Work

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Employment Opportunities for Women in Legal Work : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 265*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1958,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5535,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 250 

Supporting Taiwan’s membership in appropriate international organizations 

such as the United Nations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2007 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. 

GOODE, Mr. AKIN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. 

FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. PENCE, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. MACK, Mr. 

JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ROHRABACHER, 

Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Ms. FOXX, Mr. TANCREDO, and 

Mr. CHABOT) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting Taiwan’s membership in appropriate 

international organizations such as the United Nations. 

Whereas Taiwan has dramatically improved its record on 

human rights and routinely holds fair and free elections 

in a multiparty system, as evidenced by Taiwan’s second 

democratic presidential election in 2000 and 2004 in 

which Mr. Chen Shui-bian was elected as President; 

Whereas the 23,000,000 people in Taiwan are not represented in the United Nations and their human rights 

as citizens of the world are therefore severely abridged; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 250 IH 

Whereas Taiwan has in recent years repeatedly expressed its 

strong desire to participate in the United Nations; 

Whereas Taiwan has much to contribute to the work and 

funding of the United Nations; 

Whereas the world community has reacted positively to Taiwan’s desire for international participation, as shown by 

Taiwan’s membership in the Asian Development Bank, 

Taiwan’s admission to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group as a full member, and Taiwan’s accession as an observer to the General Agreement of Tariffs 

and Trade; and 

Whereas the United States has supported Taiwan’s participation in international organizations including the World 

Health Organization: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that— 

3 (1) Taiwan and its 23,000,000 people deserve 

4 membership in the United Nations; and 

5 (2) the United States should fulfill the commit6 ment it made in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review to 

7 more actively support Taiwan’s membership in ap8 propriate international organizations. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
No. 40405.

#### Protest 922571-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

This protest was submitted without evidence. On the record presented it was overruled.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

SAMUEL CONYERS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 618 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Order entered November 5 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01340

- CR

EX PARTE CARLOS MALD ONADO

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. WX19

- 00005

- Q



### O RDER

The Court is in r e ce ipt of a pp e l l a nt’s not i c e of a p p ea l f r om the tri a l c ourt ’ s ord e r denying

r e l i e f sou g ht b y his post

- conviction a ppl i ca t i on for w r it of h a b e a s c orpus. This is a n ac c e le ra t e d

a pp e a l and i s g ov e rn e d b y T e x a s R ule of App e l l a te P r o c e dure 3 1.

W e ORDER the tri a l c ourt to pr e p a r e a c e rtifi ca t ion of a pp e l l a nt’s r i g ht to a pp ea l a nd t o

file it with the clerk’s record.

W e ORDER the D a l l a s Coun t y D i s t r i c t Cle r k to file the c le r k’s r e c o rd b y

November 20, 2019. We ORDER that the clerk’s record contain copies of the application for

writ of habeas corpus, any response by the State, the trial court’s order disposing of the writ

application, any other documents filed that relate to the writ application, an d the trial court’s

certification of appellant’s right to appeal.

We ORDER the court reporter to file, by November 20, 2019, either the reporter’s record

from the hearing on the writ application or written verification that no hearing was conducted.– 2

–

Becau se appellant has filed an appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding challenging a

conviction, we apply the same briefing rules, deadlines, and schedule that apply to direct appeals

from criminal cases. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 31.1(a). Thus, appellant’s brief sh all be due thirty days

after the record is filed.

W e DI R ECT the Cl e rk to s e nd c opies of th i s ord e r, by electronic transmission, to the

Hono ra b l e Tammy Kemp

, P r e sid i ng J ud g e

, 204th Judicial District Court; Kendra L.

Thibodeaux, Official Court Reporter, 204t h Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre , Dallas

C ou n t y District C le r k; and counsel for appellant and the State.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
33449.

#### BROWNE v. BROWNE.

Hill, Justice.

In this no-fault divorce case, the wife appeals the granting of the husband’s motion for summary judgment as to the wife’s claim for permanent alimony. The trial court held that the wife’s alimony claim in the divorce case was barred by a final order entered in an earlier separate maintenance action which was resolved by agreement of the parties. That earlier order incorporated the parties’ agreement as to property rights, alimony, maintenance and division of property, including periodic payments of alimony to the wife. The agreement did not provide that in the event either party sued for divorce, the agreement should be incorporated into the divorce decree.

By the terms of Code Ann. § 30-213, when a petition for divorce is filed after a separate maintenance order has been entered, an order for alimony entered in the divorce case shall be a substitute for the separate maintenance order. It follows that when, in a divorce case, the trial court adjudicates the issue of permanent alimony, the prior maintenance award is entirely superseded. See *Anglon v. Griffin,*241 Ga. 546 (1978); *Shepherd v. Shepherd,*233 Ga. 228, 231 (210 SE2d 731) (1974); s. c., 236 Ga. 425, 426 (223 SE2d 818) (1976); s.c., 241 Ga. 484 (1978). See also *Tobin v. Tobin,*93 Ga. App. 568 (5) (92 SE2d 304) (1956). Thus, unless the wife has waived or lost her right to alimony, the court hearing a divorce case has the authority, if alimony is sought and it sees fit to do so, to enter a permanent alimony award which will supersede a prior separate maintenance judgment.

Wehave reviewed the agreement between the parties incorporated in the order in the separate maintenance action and find no clear waiver of the wife’s right to claim — and thus relitigate (see Code Ann., § 30-220)— alimony in the divorce action. The separate maintenance agreement states that the parties are "desirous of settling their property rights, alimony, maintenance, division of property...” and that the terms of the agreement may not be modified or waived except in writing signed by both parties. These provisions do not constitute a waiver of the wife’s right to seek alimony in a subsequent divorce ac*108tion. *McClain v. McClain,*241 Ga. 422 (1978); *Fech v. Fech,*241 Ga. 613*(1978); Kitfield v. Kitfield,*237 Ga. 184, 185-186 (227 SE2d 9) (1976); *McLoughlin v. McLoughlin,*234 Ga. 259 (214 SE2d 925) (1975). Accordingly, the summary judgment denying the wife’s claim for alimony is reversed.

Submitted March 31, 1978

Decided September 8, 1978.

*Roses & Calloway, Vincent*W. *Roses, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Frank & Leavenworth, Steven L. Frank,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bowles, J., who dissents.*
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated March 3, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Coventry Health Care, Inc., Coventry Health Care, Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Coventry Health Care, Inc, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005, in the following Registration Statements:

|Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-123014;
|-----------------------------------------------
|Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-120300;
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-117966;
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-122671;
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-71806;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-57014;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-81356;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-81358;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-82562;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-87114;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-90268;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-95084;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-97246;  
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-39581; 
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-36735; 
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-47239; 
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-75615; 
|Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-107064;
|Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-75675; 
|Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-45821; 
|Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-74280; 
|Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-83106  







Baltimore, Maryland

March 3, 2006
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
pursuant to Section 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.

/s/ H. Douglas Chaffin
-------------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2004
Exhibit 31.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Walter Thomas Price III, Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the general partner of Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the Partnership), 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                |  | 
|------------------------------- |  | 
|By: /s/ Walter Thomas Price III
|Walter Thomas Price III        
|Managing Member                
|May 16, 2005                   



E-3
# C_2016156EN.01004701.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/47

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Amrita and Others v Commission

(Case T-439/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Amrita Sarl (Scorrano, Italy) and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex to the order (represented by: L. Paccione and V. Stamerra, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 15 L 125, p. 3), where appropriate after having declined to apply Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Amrita Sarl and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Amrita Sarl and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1209 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1209

To clarify authority granted under the Act entitled ``An Act to define 
the exterior boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in the 
                State of Utah, and for other purposes''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 2011

  Mr. Hatch (for himself and Mr. Lee) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify authority granted under the Act entitled ``An Act to define 
the exterior boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in the 
                State of Utah, and for other purposes''.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to define the exterior boundary of the 
Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in the State of Utah, and for other 
purposes'', approved March 11, 1948 (62 Stat. 72; 69 Stat. 544), is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY.

    ``(a) In General.--The State of Utah is authorized to relinquish 
for the benefit of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 
Reservation any school or other State-owned subsurface mineral land 
that is located--
            ``(1) beneath the surface estate described in this Act; and
            ``(2) south of the border between Grand County, Utah, and 
        Uintah County, Utah.
    ``(b) Exchange.--In exchange for any land relinquished under 
subsection (a), the United States shall transfer to the State of Utah, 
on an acre-for-acre basis, any subsurface mineral land of the United 
States that the State of Utah requests that is located--
            ``(1) beneath the surface estate described in this Act; and
            ``(2) north of the border between Grand County, Utah, and 
        Uintah County, Utah.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 43176.

#### Protests 287653-G, etc., of Gorra Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Venice lace similar to that involved in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217) and filet lace like that the subject of *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 47065) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430.
No. *74-157.*

No. 74-647.

#### United Housing Foundation, Inc., et al. *v.*Forman et al.; and New York et al. *v.*Forman et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 419 U. S. 1120.] Motion of petitioners for additional time for oral argument granted and ten additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondents allotted ten additional minutes for oral argument.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 









Exhibit 10.25




Summary of Verbal Arrangement for Compensation for

Darin Divinia





	 	1.	 	Annual salary of $225,000, which is payable bi-monthly; and






	 	2.	 	Benefits and perquisites on the same terms and conditions as available to all employees of Immediatek,
Inc. and its subsidiaries.










Page 1





Exhibit 10.25


 


7
Exhibit
      4.9

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    


     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        5

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        6

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        7

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        8

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        9

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        10