alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00378

- CV

Sandra Lynn BURGER

, Appellant

v.

Daryl Glenn BURGER

, Appellee

From the 198th Judic ial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV 15

- 0000124 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

To date, Appellant Sandra Lynn Burger has failed to pay the applicable filing fee in this appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 provides,

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant, within ten (10) days o f the date of this order, to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee in this appeal or (2) provide written proof to this court that she is excused by statute or these rules from paying the filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (providing that party who qua lifies as indigent under Rule 20 may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

_______________________ __________ Karen Angelini, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of September, 2016

.

____________________ _______________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

July 30, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Special Request

    In order to administer the survey described below at the August 23-
26, 1997 National Association of Enrolled Agents (NAEA) Conference, the 
Department of the Treasury is requesting that the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) review and approve this information collection by 
August 13, 1997. To obtain a copy of this study, please contact the 
Internal Revenue Service Clearance Officer at the address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 97-017-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Electronic Filing Program Opinion Survey.
    Description: This survey will be conducted during the August 23-26, 
1997 National Association of Enrolled Agents (NAEA) Conference to 
determine what tax practitioners like and dislike about the Electronic 
Filing Program.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one-time only).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 80 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-20904 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
## Development of Chemical Precipitation Operation and Maintenance Costs: **Energy**

Total operation and maintenance costs include the following cost elements: (1) Operating Labor Cost (2) Maintenance Labor Cost (3) Maintenance Materials Cost (4) Chemical Purchase Cost (5) Energy

Cost

This Excel workbook supports EPA's derivation of cost element (5) using vendor data.

The following worksheet develops a relationship between filter press power requirements and sludge flow rate. The relationship is used to calculate the energy requirements and then energy costs in the Steam Electric Cost Model. See DCN SE01825.A35 as the source of data used on this analy sis.

## Development of Chemical Precipitation Operation and Maintenance Costs:

The following worksheet develops a relationship between filter press power requirements and sludge flow rate. The relationship is used to calculate the energy requirements and then energy costs in the Steam Electric Cost Model. See

### Sludge Flow, gpm **Energy requirements, HP**

280 17.5
140 10.5
14 5

y = 0.047x + 4.1937 R2 = 0.9985

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300**E n** **e r** **g y** **r e** **q u** **i r** **e m** **e n** **t s** **, H** **P**

**Sludge Flow, gpm** 

# Filt **er Pr ess P**  **ower R equir**  **ements vs.** 

**Sludg e Flow**
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Energy Pacific supports RIMPAC 2016

By Ron Inman

                PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
No. 99-7864.

#### Ponder *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2313 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on camel hair, processed beyond 

the degreased or carbonized condition. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on camel hair, 

processed beyond the degreased or carbonized condition. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAMEL HAIR, PROCESSED BEYOND THE 

4 DEGREASED OR CARBONIZED CONDITION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.20 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 camel hair, processed beyond the degreased or carbonized 

8 condition) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

9 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2313 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1294

To amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preserve and protect 

the ability of local governments to provide broadband capability and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2005

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL

To amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preserve 

and protect the ability of local governments to provide 

broadband capability and services.

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 ‘‘Community Broadband 

5 Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMUNITY BROADBAND CAPABILITY AND SERV7 ICES. 

8 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

9 (47 U.S.C. 157 note) is amended—
2

•S 1294 IS 

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub2 section (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the fol3 lowing: 

4 ‘‘(c) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF ADVANCED

5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No State statute, regula7 tion, or other State legal requirement may prohibit 

8 or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider 

9 from providing, to any person or any public or pri10 vate entity, advanced telecommunications capability 

11 or any service that utilizes the advanced tele12 communications capability provided by such pro13 vider. 

14 ‘‘(2) ANTIDISCRIMINATION SAFEGUARDS.—To 

15 the extent any public provider regulates competing 

16 private providers of advanced telecommunications 

17 capability or services, it shall apply its ordinances 

18 and rules without discrimination in favor of itself or 

19 any advanced telecommunications services provider 

20 that it owns. 

21 ‘‘(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section 

22 shall exempt a public provider from any Federal or 

23 State telecommunications law or regulation that ap24 plies to all providers of advanced telecommunications 
3

•S 1294 IS 

1 capability or services using such advanced tele2 communications capability.’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (d), as 

4 redesignated, the following: 

5 ‘‘(3) PUBLIC PROVIDER.—The term ‘public pro6 vider’ means a State or political subdivision thereof, 

7 any agency, authority, or instrumentality of a State 

8 or political subdivision thereof, or an Indian tribe 

9 (as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Deter10 mination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 

11 450b(e)), that provides advanced telecommunications 

12 capability, or any service that utilizes such advanced 

13 telecommunications capability, to any person or pub14 lic or private entity.’’.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DA DEFENSE LOGISTICS HQ, LLC, A

LIMI TED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

,

Appellant

,

v.

RANDALL BENART,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 192

- C V

Appeal from the

327 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2020 DC V2149 )

O R D E R

On September 23 , 2020 , Appellant filed notice of appeal in the above

- styled and numbered

cause. The notice of appeal is late, but it was filed within fifteen days after the deadline for the

notice of appeal to be filed. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied w hen an

appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by T EX .R.A PP .P.

26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension

of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, an appellant must

still provide the Court with a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal before

the Court may accept the appeal. Accordingly, Appellant is ordered to respond in writing and

provide the Court with a reasonable explanation for filing the notice of appeal late. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), 26.3; Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 617. The explanation is due to be filed

no later than October 4 , 2020. If Appellant fails to comply with this order, the appeal is subject to

dismissal without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 th d ay of September

, 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    I, Ramon Chimelis, president, treasurer, and secretary, certify that
the forgoing quarterly report on Form 10-QSB containing the financial
statements set forth within fully comply with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o (d)) and that information contained in the quarterly report
presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Big Sky Industries VIII, Inc.


Date: May 20, 2003             /s/ Ramon Chimelis
                               -------------------------------
                               Ramon Chimelis
                               President



<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

y1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

143361 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143361 

 COA: 303561 

Saginaw CC: 10-033850-FC 

JONATHAN JOEADAM LOUIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00230

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF H.C. §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at

Law No. 1

of Denton County (JV

- 2018

- 00258)

March 14, 2019

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the amended order of

adjudication and disposition is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 23(a)

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
            --------------------------------------------------------

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
2-87783, No. 33-13696, No. 33-25240 and No. 33-21042) on Forms S-8, S-2, S-8 and
S-2, respectively, of Ronson Corporation of our report, dated March 27, 2008,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet, statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows of Ronson Corporation and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007
annual report on Form 10-K of Ronson Corporation.

DEMETRIUS & COMPANY, L.L.C.

Wayne, New Jersey
March 27, 2008

                                       90
#### LAKE FOREST, INC., Pati-Four and the Ground Pat’I, Inc. v. Edward R. DRURY and C. Reece Owen, Jr.

No. 61320.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1978.

In re: Ground Pat’I, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 352 So.2d 305.

Writ denied.

DIXON and DENNIS, JJ., would grant.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Budget, cost-saving approaches discussed at DLA Cost Summit

By Christopher Goulait

                FORT Belvoir, Virginia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Defense Logistics AgencyDLACost SummittransparencyDLA DistributionDLA EnergyDLA Distribution HeadquartersDLA FinanceDLA Logistics Operations
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Energy Commander visits Australia, Pacific commands

By Irene Smith, DLA Energy Public Affairs

                AZUMA, Japan  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Exhibit 32.2

# Written Statement of
the Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officerof The Middleton Doll
CompanyPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the undersigned Vice
President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer of The Middleton Doll Company (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report of
Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 29, 2004

| | /s/ Susan J. Hauke        
| | --------------------------
| | Susan J. Hauke            
| | Vice President Finance and
| | Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60046

Summary Calendar

 

SYED AZHAR MUNAWAR,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A71 591 641)

- - - - - - - - - -

September 19, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Syed Azhar Munawar, a Pakistani citizen, petitions for

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Munawar argues that the failure to notify him by certified mail,

return receipt requested, of the date of his hearing denied him

actual notice of his deportation hearing, thereby constituting

reasonable cause for his failure to appear.

Because Munawar moved without informing the Government of 
No. 96-60046

- 2 -

his change of address, as required by statute, the ultimate fault

for his failure to receive the notice of his deportation hearing

was his. See United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 735-

36 (5th Cir. 1996). Thus, Munawar had a reasonable opportunity

to be present at his deportation hearing and did not demonstrate

reasonable cause for failing to appear. Id. at 736.

The petition for review is DENIED.