alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PLANTATION BEAUTY SALON, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Clair J. BURCH and Beatrice L. Burch, Appellees.

No. 69-537.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Aug. 18, 1969.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; William Clayton Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0197

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

RICHARD DENVER HINMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 14, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 9 2020

07/09/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0197
#### Gloria Delesdernier, wife of Paul MARCHAND v. George T. ARMSTRONG and Mark Delesdernier et al.

No. 61582.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Paul Delesdernier, Succession of Ira Delesdernier, Sr. and Gael Keene Ralph, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Plaquemines. 354 So.2d 581.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willy COLEMAN.

No. 61316.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1978.

Don M. Richard, Lemle, Kelleher, Kohl-meyer & Matthews, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 31, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60467

Summary Calendar

 

RAYMOND NAZIEN, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 versus

 

 

JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 

 

Respondent. 

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A18-800-891

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raymond Nazien, a native of Haiti, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals(BIA) finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(B). Nazien also seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand for

consideration of new evidence to support his claim that he is a citizen of the United States. 
 

-2-

This court does not have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of an alien who is

removable for being convicted of certain criminaloffenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). This court

does have “jurisdiction to review jurisdictional facts and determine the proper scope of its own

jurisdiction.” Flores-Garza v. INS, 328 F.3d 797, 802 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Nazien does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he is removable for being convicted

of a criminal offense. Nazien argues that the BIA erred in finding that he was not a citizen under 8

U.S.C. § 1433. As the BIA found, the record contains no evidence that Nazien’s father filed an

application seeking to make Nazien a citizen after Nazien’s father was naturalized in 1973. There is

no substantial issue of fact that, if resolved in his favor, would show that Nazien is not an alien. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order. See

Balogun v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274, 277-78 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Nazien argues for the first time on appeal that he is a “national” of the Unites States because

his parents intended that he become a citizen. Nazien’s failure to raise this claim before the BIA

deprivesthis court of jurisdiction over the issue. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d

448, 452- 453 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Nazien’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

78) ll-K- (B) -66 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50 AM Sheet 78 of 325 
P.2 

f 

vi 

>i_< 

II-K-(B)-66 

MEMORANDA REGARDING UNCONTROLLED NO EMISSION RATES 

AND NOv EMISSION STANDARDS.

 X 

A 

Memorandum from B. Short, EPArSASD to E. Medine, EEA. 

May 5, 1981. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-66
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 American Southwest Music Distribution, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Michery, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                        |                                                     
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated:   March 22, 2007 | /s/ David Michery                                   
|                        | David Michery, President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the inclusion in the Form 10KSB being filed under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by Andean Development Corporation and Subsidiaries of our
report dated August 9, 2000, relating to our audits of the consolidated balance
sheets of Andean Development Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31,
1999 and 1998 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 1999 and
1998 and appearing in the aforementioned Form 10KSB.



SPEAR, SAFER, HARMON & CO.
Certified Public Accountants


Miami, Florida
November 10, 2000
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Wolf Island

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge

USFWS Photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies

needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and

Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above

current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service

strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans

do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational

and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Intracoastal Waterway
Brazoria NWR

ra
ss
San Bernard NWR
W Cs Intracoastal Weterway
Chinquapin 9 "sp mos My

BigBoggxyNwR st

Big Boggy NWR: The refuge borders Matagorda Bay, about seven miles south of
Wadsworth and 20 miles from Bay City. From Brazoria, Texas, drive west on FM521
to Chinquapin Road. Turn left (south) and drive by the refuge to Chinquapin Landing.

https:/veb archive.org web/20121 11307 1637/http:/AwwwfWs.g ov'southwest/refug es/texas/texasmidcoast/areamapbb him

4/1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45450-45451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22755]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-

[[Page 45451]]

463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Polar Programs (1209).
    Date and Time: September 15-17, 1997, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 310, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Julie Palais, Office of Polar Programs, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1033.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Antarctic Glaciology proposals as 
part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 21, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-22755 Filed 8-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
No. 99-7944.

#### Suarez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 2763.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 9, 1977.

JONES, Justice.

Writ Denied.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
May 12, 2004

Michael Guzzetta Rule Evaluation Section Emission Assessment Branch Stationary Source Division Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

RE: Amendments to the following rules: Rule 2, Definitions Rule 5, Effective Date Rule 10, Permits Required Rule 30, Permit Renewal Rule 42 Permit Fees Rule 50, Opacity Rule 51, Nuisance Rule 52, Particulate Matter – Concentration Rule 53, Particulate Matter - Process Weight Rule 68, Carbon Monoxide Rule 102, Source Tests

Repeal of the following rules: : Rule 45.1, ECO Plan Fees Rule 55, Exemptions From Emission Standards Rule 60, New Non-Mobile Equipment - Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Particulate Matter Rule 62.3, Hexavalent Chromium – Cooling Towers Rule 62.4, Asbestos – Serpentine Rock for Surfacing Rule 62.5, Dioxins – Medical Waste Incinerators Rule 100, Analytical Methods

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Attached electronically you will find a submittal package regarding the above recently amended and rescinded Ventura County APCD Rules. Thes e rule changes were approved by the District’s Board on April 13, 2004.Michael Guzzetta Page 2
The attached submittal package includes the CARB Completeness List and Rule Evaluation Form, and various other materials required by EPA Region IX. Please forward this material to EPA, Region IX, as a revision to our State Implementation Plan.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 645-1409

Sincerely

Chris Frank Supervisor, Rule Development
June 25,	2015

U.	S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave.,	SE

Washington	DC	20590

Re: Amendment	to	Exemption	Application	No.	FAA-2015-0228 filed

pursuant	to	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the	

Federal	Aviation	Regulations	in	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-

0228.

Dear	Sir	or	Madam;

High	Flight	Photo has	been	granted	an	exemption,	Exemption	No.	11455,

(hereinafter	the	Exemption) for	the	purpose	of	aerial	imaging with	sUAS.	High	

Flight	Photo hereby	requests	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption	to	allow	an additional	

model of	unmanned	aircraft systems	(UAS)	that	fully	complies with	the	conditions	of	

the	Exemption.	

High	Flight	Photo wishes	to	operate	the	Kespry	UAS under	the	same	terms	

and	conditions	contained	in	the	Exemption.		Attached	hereto,	and	submitted	as	a	

confidential	document,	is	the	Flight	Operations	and	Procedures	Manual	for	the	

Kespry UAS.	All	operations	of	the	additional	UAS	will	be	in	full	compliance	with	the	

terms	of	the	Exemption.

Please	contact	the	undersigned	should	you	have	any	questions	concerning	

this	request	for	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption.

Sincerely	yours,

Mike	Porter

High	Flight	Photo

Gabriel	Dobbs

Kespry,	Inc.
# DLA Energy helps clean up oil spill in Greece

/ Published Nov. 3, 2017
CRETE, Greece, A Defense Logistics Agency Energy-partnered mobile oil-water separator from the Marathi Depot in Crete, Greece, helped clean contaminated sea water after a significant oil spill occurred near Athens, Greece.The mobile oil response unit was purchased under a cost-sharing agreement between DLA Energy, the United Kingdom Royal Navy and the Hellenic Navy for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Marathi Depot, where DLA Energy has an international agreement for bulk fuel storage and supply services. The equipment was put in to action after the Greek tanker vessel, Agia Zoni II, carrying approximately 2,500 tons of fuel sank off the coast of the Salamis Island Sept. 10, resulting in an oil spill that threatened the environment, wildlife, maritime commerce and caused the area coastlines and beaches to be closed to the public.In an effort to expedite the clean-up efforts, the Hellenic Navy called upon the fuel experts and the oil-water separator at Marathi Depot to assist. The FREYLIT mobile water treatment system was moved to the site to skim the surface of the water, remove the oil and return clean water to the sea. “The oil-water separator came in to help the vacuum trucks that used hand-held hoses and removed the sea water and the oil without cleaning the water,” said Hellenic Navy Cmdr. Thomas Tsilis who is responsible for Marathi Depot NATO fuel operations.The enterprise response unit was procured in order to reinforce the depot's capability in antipollution actions and is the only one available in Greece, Tsilis said.“Since there were no previous fuel spills of this size at Marathi Depot, the use of this equipment for a full-scale fuel spill put it to the test,” said Heather Huhn, petroleum liaison officer to Greece, Portugal and Spain at DLA Energy Europe & Africa. “It succeeded with flying colors.” The Marathi Depot is a Hellenic Navy military installation located on the northern side of Crete on Souda Bay and near the town of Chania. The depot’s operation and maintenance, including the purchase of equipment like the oil-water separator, is cooperatively administered based on an international agreement between the Hellenic Navy, the United Kingdom Royal Navy and DLA Energy.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996       
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         3,766,916
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,912,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,841,310
<PP&E>                                         165,557
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (87,119)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,839,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          498,217
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       282
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,159,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,839,997
<SALES>                                        3,423,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,423,552
<CGS>                                          1,074,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (251,795)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             325,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,493,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                   151,215
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,342,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,342,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .81
        


</TABLE>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-1-460-000]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

August 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 22, 1997, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to become effective 
September 22, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 274

    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Order on Remand of Order No. 636-C issued February 27, 
1997 in Docket No. RM91-11-006, et al. Northwest states that it has 
revised its right-of-first-refusal tariff provisions to reduce the term 
cap for matching a competitive bid from twenty years to five years in 
order to avoid pregranted abandonment of service.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's jurisdictional customers and upon interested state 
regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest this filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23155 Filed 8-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of American Physicians Service Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



1.

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



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.







|                        |  |              
|----------------------- |  | -------------
|/s/ Marc J. Zimmermann  |  | March 4, 2009
|Marc J. Zimmermann      |  | Date         
|Chief Financial Officer |  |
Pa ss ama q u o d d y J o ii n tt Trr ii b a ll L a n d s

Map Created by Christina Stringer

April15 2013

Data Source Base Map Bing Maps

Trust Boundaries US 2010 Census

Fee Boundaries Passamaquoddy Tribe

Fee Lands

Trust Lands

0 3.5 7 14 21 28

Miles

0 10 20 40 60 80

Miles

EPA001407
#### Johnnie JONES (Willie Felton), Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION and Louie L. Wainwright, Director of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Appellees.

No. EE-440.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 10, 1977.

*682Kenneth S. Feldman, Halpern, Shenberg & Langer, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.

This appeal is from the trial court’s order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus directed to appellees, Florida Parole and Probation Commission and Louie L. Wainwright, Director of Offender Rehabilitation. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Commission found that appellant Jones had violated the terms of his parole by participating in the robbery of certain named individuals.

Necessitating a reversal is the lack of evidentiary climate present in the course of the revocation hearing, which was cogently summed up at the outset of same by one of the commissioners who stated: “ . . . [W]e are not bound by any rules of evidence . . ..” The transcript of the proceedings confirms this statement. In the order denying the petition, the trial judge correctly found that revocation of parole may not be based solely on hearsay. *Hampton v.*State, 276 So.2d 497 (Fla.3rd DCA 1973). He incorrectly held that a sworn statement which had been given by appellant’s alleged girlfriend was not of hearsay character, and thus sufficient to sustain the action of the Commission. The record in this proceeding does not reflect one iota of evidence that is not hearsay. We are fully cognizant that a revocation hearing is- not a traditional adversary criminal trial, and evidentiary proof is not required to follow strict rules of evidence. *Singletary*v. *State,*290 So.2d 116 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). Yet, some valid legal evidence must be adduced prior to hearsay testimony being admitted.

Reversed and remanded without prejudice to the Commission to conduct further proceedings upon the alleged violation.

SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
# DDRV team member retires after 40 years of service

/ Published July 23, 2018
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
Edward S. Lord worked as a bindery machine operator at DLA Distribution Richmond, Virginia. After 40 years of government service, the Vietnam Veteran is retiring.  

Lord served two years in the U.S Army – did his time in Vietnam – and ended his Army service as an E-4/Specialist.

During the span of his 40-year career, Lord said he observed many changes in technology and thinks the government is more organized. He really enjoyed his job, thought it was great, and attributed his success to overall good health.

Lord felt his career allowed him to experience a sense of comradery and that it provided him with a good and secure life. The highlight of his career was being able to meet people from all around the world.

He felt the Defense logistics agency provided him with optimism and the knowledge of a good future.

Lord said his time with DLA was a great experience.

“Working for DLA gave me the opportunity to work with a good group of men and women,“ he said. 

Lord’s advice to those following in government service – do a good job.

In his parting comments, Lord emphasized that he wishes people will support the military in every crisis.
No. 00-6944.

#### Bagby *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari, denied.
**Greenhouse and Nursery Statistics (90024)**