alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

86) IV-E-80 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:58:00 AM Sheet 86 of 117 
P.2 

A 90-37 

IV-E-80 

Meeting Notes 

Date: January 3, 2001 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss details on the current Administrations plans 

for finalizing provisions for the 1996 NSR Reform proposed rule. No handouts provided. 

Attendee list attached. 

Attachment 
cc 

NAME 

^jyygsy JflAOKS 

'ulieJSeclts 

( Ui/clc |fn«KCf 

/ e r l4*f*)ke5 

New Source Review Meeting (John Seitz) 

Wednesday, January 3, 2001 

10:30 a.m. 

Industry Room 

PLEASE SIGN IN 

62KB 

ORGANIZATION 

Alflro 

flll>a«a d&Mdr/e ft/n 

ttt^Uf 

mhKjL tJtmQdt^UB^^LM^Q. 

/k pet. Inshkk 

TbCXXZ* 0***% __i___l 

2g,q. -ftAftA/trrT £PA 

&>thJ S.-£(T2r e?Pr 

/

^f^_M. £P(\ 

TELEPHONE/FAX NO. 

^•^T ' ZX7c/G?>T2tifr 

202-jzo-rsr?/ 5?4>Q 

2 * 2 -H1N?6W/7^V> 

*1^777~22^l/7g<_3 

2^2 GiXZ-SHte y?c$ 

2.^^>4a_^3L^o *fta>>3 d^P (jj, o ^ • o *~Q 

EMAIL 

jnwte g neuft.o-A 

\pecfer$auM//afice, gy^> 

L-mM***^ ^s^JiUw. c_a 

Ice. Uv^Vo. (> ^ b~^. U-

_0€cOb^n p a 

CnifciMrw 

M^i-sbfC 

<?/<?• SY/- SS^*} 

HfVO^TT.BtujQj&ii BOJ / 

WOM _J2__^5. t*AtUx <£ji_f x .a« v 

• D 

0> 
P.4 

I 

*0 

s •a 

m tj 

I" 

a 

I 

1 

•^A 

4 i Hf 

r 

I—I 

tzi 

o 

z 

o 

e 

a 

Crsl 

v * 

K 

• 

bo 

N 

^ 

st 

i — » 

cr-

•0 \T\ 3 tf 

i CO ^ r* N 

IA rO 

I 

> 

I 

ft 

\ 

> 

i 

2>S 

r* ^ 

tt 

x3 

8£2 

5 NJ 

o 

to 

j 

H —» Ji 

4 

_ 

/ 

J v^ 

. 0 

j •? O ^ 
PLEASE SIGN IN 

NAME 

l?\Ll LSuMS 

L.(PW>\ §tW& s 

f^vu^^r^M 

ORGANIZATION 

Amtjle^/cfiif 

/ 

0h loeCA 

ewfoL 

TELEPHONE/FAX NO. 

7a^-467-71*r 

-7J7& 

Z62.*)(sU\ &%<\ j^- ^ 

njnSimA. W>i- J's??3 

EMAIL 

PO/eu. !s @ITK/ J> • ^2?»n 

/l J,%_> 5, &W* /^ ^ - ^ 

a i L?Sr^. KWI^C* €>, ^p i ^ " 

*• 

bi
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe modeling of the solar upper photosphere and lower chromosphere based upon ATM dataThe use of the solar H I Lyman spectral line as a diagnostic of the lower to middle chromosphere is discussed. Quiet sun Lyman profiles from the photographic spectra were subjected to data reduction and appropriate theoretical modelling was accomplished. Apollo telescope mount data was utilized.Document ID19830003763Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHeasley, J. N.*(Hawaii Univ. Honolulu, HI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1982Subject CategorySolar PhysicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-170641NAS 1.26:170641Accession Number83N12033Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-33219Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19830003763.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
#### CROWN HOTEL OPERATING COMPANY and Employers Service Corporation, Petitioners, Cross-Respondents, v. Ruth HAYNES and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents, Cross-Petitioner.

No. 38503.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 25, 1969.

Eugene E. Williams, of Williams & Ja-bara, Miami, for petitioners, cross-respondents.

L. Barry Keyfetz, of Ser, Greenspahn, Keyfetz & Gallagher, Miami, for respondent, cross-petitioner.

Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition and cross-petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date March 12, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petitions, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition and cross-petition are therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees filed by Respondent cross-petitioner is granted in the amount of $250.00.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### James Patrick LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Ronald BOURGOIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. John MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. HH-50, HH-96 and HH-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Michael H. Davidson, George R. Georgieff, Asst. Attys. Gen.,-for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

By these consolidated appeals appellants seek review of the denial of their motions to dismiss, following which denial they each entered a plea of nolo contendere, reserving their right to appeal.

William Weaver, an undercover agent for the First Circuit Narcotics Investigation Unit, sold each of the appellants in three separate unrelated transactions one pound of marijuana. By their motion to dismiss the defendants urged unconscionable misconduct, abuse of prosecutorial discretion and violations of due process and equal protection. It is important to note that appellants do not rely upon the defense of entrapment.

Whether or not agent Weaver’s conduct is protected by F.S. 893.09(5) we need not determine. Clearly each of the defendants were guilty of unlawful possession of mari*425juana and they do not claim to have been entrapped. Neither does the record reveal that the state has infringed upon their constitutional rights. As stated in *Hampton v. United States,*425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976).

> “ * * * If the police engage in illegal activity in concert with a defendant beyond the scope of their duties the remedy lies, not in freeing the equally culpable defendant, but in prosecuting the police under the applicable provisions of state or federal law. * * * ” (Citations omitted: 96 S.Ct. at page 1650).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., BOYER, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
# L_2018155EN.01000401.xml

| 19.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 155/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 155/4

---

DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2018/879 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 13 June 2018

appointing Judges to the Court of Justice

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The terms of office of 14 Judges and five Advocates-General of the Court of Justice are due to expire on 6 October 2018. Appointments to these posts should therefore be made for the period beginning on 7 October 2018. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The terms of office of 14 Judges and five Advocates-General of the Court of Justice are due to expire on 6 October 2018. Appointments to these posts should therefore be made for the period beginning on 7 October 2018.

| (2) | The term of office of these Judges and Advocates-General is six years. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The term of office of these Judges and Advocates-General is six years.

| (3) | Mr Irmantas JARUKAITIS and Mr Peter George XUEREB have been nominated for the post of Judge of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Mr Irmantas JARUKAITIS and Mr Peter George XUEREB have been nominated for the post of Judge of the Court of Justice.

| (4) | The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of these candidates to perform the duties of Judges of the Court of Justice and the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of these candidates to perform the duties of Judges of the Court of Justice and the General Court,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed Judges of the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2018 to 6 October 2024:

| — | Mr Irmantas JARUKAITIS, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Irmantas JARUKAITIS,

| — | Mr Peter George XUEREB. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Peter George XUEREB.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 2018.

The President

D. TZANTCHEV

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-25-000]


Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of 1997 ACA 
Rate

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 28, 1997, Mississippi River Transmission 
Corporation (``MRT''), tendered for filing Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 10 
to its FERC Gas Tariff Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    MRT states that the purpose of the instant filing is to place into 
effect the new FERC approved ACA surcharge of $0.0022 per MMBtu, 
effective October 1, 1997 in accordance with Section 23 of MRT's FERC 
Gas Tariff.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest the subject filing 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All such motions and protests should be filed in 
accordance with 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 available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23811 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DWIGHT BAKER, :

Petitioner, : No. 4:04-CV-2389

:

v. : (McClure, J.)

: (Mannion, M.J.)

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF :

PROBATION AND PAROLE, and :

GERALD J. PAPPERT, Attorney :

General of Pennsylvania, :

Respondents. :

O R D E R

June 21, 2005

BACKGROUND:

Now before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Mannion in the above-captioned case. The Magistrate Judge recommends

dismissing petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

as moot. Petitioner failed to file any objections to the report and recommendation. 

We therefore need only review the record for clear error before accepting the

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Mitchell v. Department of

Corrections, 272 F. Supp. 2d 464, 466 (M.D. Pa. 2003). Finding no clear error,

we accept the report and recommendation as the holding of this court. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). 

Case 4:04-cv-02389-JFM Document 12 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mannion (Rec.

Doc. No. 10), is adopted as the holding of this court. 

2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as moot.

3. The clerk is directed to close the case file.

4. There is no basis for a certificate of appealability. 

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02389-JFM Document 12 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GULZAR SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72820

Agency No. A097-111-145

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Gulzar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand, and

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

JUL 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-72820

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We

review de novo due process contentions and we review for substantial evidence

factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We

deny the petition for review.

Even if Singh had timely filed his asylum application within one year of

entry into the United States, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse

credibility determination because discrepancies regarding Singh’s employment as a

constable police officer in his asylum application go to the heart of his claim. See

Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies that go to

the heart of the claim from asylum application support an adverse credibility

determination). In the absence of credible evidence, Singh has failed to show

eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not

credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he

would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.

We deny Singh’s due process claim challenging the BIA’s denial of his

motion to remand because the BIA did not abuse its discretion and Singh failed to
3 07-72820

demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### A. J. STRONG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11280.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 20, 1969.

Hayes, Harke'y & Smith, by Thomas M. Hayes, Jr., Monroe, for defendant-appellant.

Guerriero & Guerriero, by Joseph S. Guerriero, Monroe, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, by Jesse D. McDonald, Monroe, for Jimmie Mack Allen and Marathon Ins. Co., third party defendants-appellees.

Before AYRES, DIXON and PRICE, JJ.

DIXON, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial with Strong et al. v. Allen et al., 228 So.2d 44, decided this day. The American Security Insurance Company was the collision carrier for the Strong automobile. The only question involved is the value of the Strong automobile at the time of the collision. The trial judge fixed the value at $1,900.00, and awarded judgment for that sum (less certain credits) to A. J. Strong. From this judgment, the insurance company appeals seeking a reduction of the judgment to $1,500.00, less credits.

The 1965 Ford automobile was destroyed in the accident on September 25, 1967, beyond repair.

The evidence with reference to the value of the automobile was in conflict. One witness testified that the car had a market value of $1,500.00. Another witness testified about the “blue book” value, over the objections of the defendant. That witness also testified that he had sold a similar automobile for $1,900.00. The defendant’s witness testified in one place that the $1,500.00 market value of the automobile was the “wholesale value” of the car. The testimony as a whole supports the conclusion of the trial judge that the value of the automobile at the time of the collision was $1,900.00.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
O pinion filed August 12, 2021



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 160

- C V

__________
IN RE LINDA JACKSON

O riginal Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator, Linda Jackson , has filed in this court a petition for writ of mandamus
that relat es to a suit affecting the parent

– child relationship between Relator and her
children: Cause No. CV2001036 in the 35th District Court of Brown County . The trial court signed an agr eed final order in the underlying cause on July 14, 2021, and Relator has filed an appeal from that order. Her appeal is currently pending in this
court in Cause No. 11

- 21

- 00156

- CV. Mandamus relief is appropriate only if the trial court has abused its d iscretion
and there is no adequate appellate remedy. In re CSX Corp. , 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992)2 (orig. proceeding). The burden of establishing these matters is on Relator

. See CSX , 124 S.W.3d at 151. In the proceeding before us, Relator complains that the trial court abused its discretion in numerous ways, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings below, that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient, that the integrity of the process below was questionable, and that the trial court’s order threatens continued serious harm. We have reviewed Relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus and the record that she filed in support of her petition , and we have
concluded that the trial court’s order does not appear to be void 1 and that Relator has
failed to show that she lacks an adequate remedy by and through her appeal , which is currently pending b efore this court

. Accordingly, w e deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

August 12, 2021
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J ., Trotter , J

. , and W illiams, J.

1 S

ee In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (holding that, if the challenged order is void, the relator need not show inadequate appellate remedy); Dunn v. Street , 938 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex. 1997) (holding that a writ of mandamus will issue to compel a trial court to set aside a void order because signing a void order is necessarily an abuse of discretion for which the ordinary appellate remedy is inadequate).
CERTIFICATIONS Pursuant to Section 302






I, Dan Sifford, certify that:






1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GYK Ventures, Inc. for this Third Quarter ended September 30, 2004;






2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;






3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;






4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:






a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;






b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and






c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;






5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):






a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and






b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and






6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.






Dated: November 15, 2004






/s/J. Dan Sifford






J. Dan Sifford






secretary/director