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

**San Antonio, Texas** 

April 23, 2019

No s

. 04

- 18

- 00861

- CR & 04

- 18

- 00862

- CR

Juan ORTIZ

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No s . 2017CR7171 & 2018CR 0457 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due February 13, 2019, but was not filed. After a Rule 38.8 notice and a subsequent order, the brief was due April 8, 2019. No brief was filed. On April 17, 2019, appellant filed a motion for leave to file a motion for extension of time and a

motion for extension of time. As for the motion for leave, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for the filing of a mo tion for leave to file a motion for extension of

time. Accordingly, we DENY AS MOOT the motion for leave. As for the extension, appellant requests that we grant an extension of time to April 30, 2019. We GRANT the motion for

extension of time and ORDER appellant to file his brief in this court on or before April 30,

2019

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of April, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26140]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Panel for Developmental Mechanisms; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Advisory Panel for Developmental Mechanisms (#1141).
    Date: October 22-24, 1997.
    Place: NSF, Room 390, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Judith Plesset and Dr. James Mahaffey, 
Program Directors, Developmental Mechanisms, Division of Integrative 
Biology and Neuroscience, Room 685, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-
1417.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Agenda: Open Session: October 23, 1997; 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.--
to discuss goals and assessment procedures.
    Closed Session: October 22, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; October 23, 
8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and October 24, 
8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The panel will be reviewing and evaluating 
Developmental Mechanism 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: September 29, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-26140 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0060 SAT Date: 11/20/2012 Print Date: 9/30/2013

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2-3 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 2 PMN 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ;

Keywords : Keywords: IRR/CORROSION-E,S,MM,L, UNCERT-SENS-DERMAL/RESPIRATORY, DEVEL, REPRO, ONCO, MUTA, AQUATOX-A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0060 FATE: log Kow = 3.87 (E) log Koc = 1.87 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E) log Fish BAF = 2.46 (E) FATE:log Kow = 2.76 (M) log Koc = 1.50 (E) log Fish BCF = 1.49 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.67 (E) FATE: log Kow = 1.99 (E) log Koc = 1.60 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.98 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.00 (E) PMN Substance: Solid S = Reacts Hydrolysis Half-life = min-hrs

H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = ; then
Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt neodecanoic acid wk; Hyd Pdt isobutane wk; Hyd Pdt butadiene wk Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt butadiene low PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; ;
*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl;

Health : Health Summary: Expect absorption and reaction all routes based on p hysical/chemical properties. The PMN material hydrolyzes rapidly with water and releases

, . Based on the reactivity, the PMN material is expected to be a strong irritant and possibly corrosive to all exposed tissues. There is concern for developmental toxicity for if the branching occurs at t he alpha carbon. There is also concern for developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, oncogenicity, and mutagenicity and uncertain concern for dermal and respiratory sensitization for

e. has a RfC of 0.002 mg/m3 for inhalation exposure based on ovarian atrophy and a slope factor of 3E-5 p er ug/m3 based on the incidence of leukemia in humans (IRIS). N TP found clear evidence of carcinogenicity in mice when exposed via inhalation ). N TP also found fetal growth retardation, decreased p lacental weights, and increased incidences of morphologic variations and maternal toxicity in a developmental toxicity from an inhalation study in mice with a LOEL of 40 p pb ( N TP ). Moderate high concern.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Commentsfish 96-h LC50 0.77 daphnid 48-h LC50 1.2 green algal 96-h EC50 15 fish

_ chronic value 0.079 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.28

algal

_ chronic value 3.6
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for neodymium compounds; SAR chemical class = effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations ; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 8

SARs neodymium compounds SAR Class
Ecotox Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Becky Jones
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 16
Case 09-02045-JAD Doc 64 Filed 08/24/10 Entered 08/24/10 15:52:02 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 16
June 2, 2015 United States Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590
**Re: Exemption Amendment Request Pursuant To Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012**

Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to request that the exemption certificate (#11218) written by the FAA for Saratoga Aerial Photo and Video, a division of SillyCar Design be amended to allow the PIC to posses a Sport Pilot Certificate as opposed to a private pilot certificate as it is currently written. After speaking with Rob Pappas and referring to the certificate granted to Aeryon Labs (#11213), which states “ The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training requirements of sport, recreational, private and commercial certificates and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot certificate, and operating under this exemption, would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground.” and “ Because the petitioner did not propose to use certificated pilots, and in light of comments received, the FAA re-assessed the level of pilot certificate that would be appropriate for the petitioner’s operations. In evaluating this petition, similar to the evaluation of the private and commercial pilot certificates in Exemption No. 11062, the agency compared the aeronautical knowledge requirements of the recreational and sport pilot certificates to those of the private pilot certificate. We found that the aeronautical knowledge requirements that would be applicable to a UAS operation under this exemption for a recreational pilot and sport pilot certificate are substantially similar as those for a private pilot certificate.” I believe that Saratoga Aerial Photo and Video, a division of SillyCar Design should be a similar candidate for such an amendment. I am not sure how much information would be required to make this amendment, however , please feel free to contact me to discuss any further information that would be helpful in making your decision and I will do my best to provide whatever is needed. In closing, I would like to reiterate that I hope the simple fact that someone such as myself who operates a very small business and will be operating a UAS on a very small scale is continuing to strive to comply with this exemption shows how serious I am about safety and doing things properly . Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel A. Glastetter

Owner/Operator Saratoga Aerial Photo and Video a division of SillyCar Design 1077 Rock City RoadRock City Falls, NY 12863
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

OUR REVOLUTION WASHINGTON, ) No. 78497-8-I

a Washington nonprofit corporation; )

VIVIAN QUEIJA, an individual, and )

RYAN WHITNEY, an individual, )

Respondent,

v.

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ANDREW G. SATURN, an individual, )

) FILED: July 22, 2019

Appellant. )

VERELLEN, J. —Andrew Saturn appeals the trial court’s award of attorney

fees to Our Revolution Washington (ORW). On minimal briefing, Saturn contends

res judicata barred ORW’s request for attorney fees because a stipulated order

dismissing all claims with prejudice was a final judgment. Saturn is incorrect.

Although an order granting a stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a final

judgment for purposes of res judicata,’ such an order does not preclude an award

of attorney fees. Res judicata can refer to either issue or claim preclusion.2 Issue

1 Berschauer Phillips Const. Co. v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 175 Wn.

App. 222, 228 nil, 308 P.3d 681 (2013).

2 Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen, 87 Wn. App. 320, 327, 941 P.2d 1108

(1997) (quoting Philip A. Trautman, Claim and Issue Preclusion in Civil Litigation in

Washington, 60 WAsH. L. REv. 805, 805 (1985)).
No. 78497-8-1/2

preclusion does not apply because the court did not make any rulings in its

dismissal order whether to award or deny attorney fees.3 And claim preclusion

does not apply because “this case does not involve a second suit between the

parties but instead involves a subsequent stage of the same litigation.”4 Saturn

provides no authority that under either meaning of res judicata, OWA was

estopped from requesting attorney fees.5

Therefore, we affirm.

WE CONCUR:

1/

~ Clerk’s Papers at 1-3, 230; see Weaver v. City of Everett, 4 Wn. App. 2d

303, 315, 320, 421 P.3d 1013 (2018), review granted, 192 Wn.2d 1001, 430 P.3d

251 (2018) (final judgment on the merits of an issue is required for issue

preclusion).

~ Cook v. Brateng, 180 Wn. App. 368, 373, 321 P.3d 1255 (2014); see

Weaver, 4 Wn. App. 2d at 320 (‘Generally, [claim preclusion] bars the relitigation

of claims that were litigated, might have been litigated, or should have been

litigated in a prior action.”); CR 54(d)(2) (allowing a motion for attorney fees after

entry of the final judgment for which the party seeks fees); see also, e.g., Elliott

Bay Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Dacumos, 200 Wn. App. 208, 214, 218, 401 P.3d 473

(2017) (dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from bringing the same claim

against the defendant but does not preclude an award of attorney fees in a

subsequent stage of the original action).

~ Saturn seems to argue in his reply brief that ORW’s motion was untimely

under CR 54(d)(2), but we decline to consider this argument because he makes it

only in reply and provides no citations to the record to support his contention. See

RAP 10.3(c) (content of a reply brief is limited to issues already raised);

RAP 10.3(a)(6) (arguments must be presented with references to relevant parts of

the record).

2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25869]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,326]


Owens-Illinois Closure, Inc., Erie, PA; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 
5, 1997, applicable to workers of Owens-Illinois Closure, Inc., located 
in Erie, Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the Federal Register 
on June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34710).
    At the request of the State agency the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. Findings show that the 
petition investigation was conducted on behalf of workers at Owens-
Illinois Closure Inc., producing metal cans and lids. The TAA 
certification, however, covered all workers of Owens-Illinois Closure, 
Inc., in Erie, Pennsylvania.
    Other findings of the investigation review show that the decision 
document inadvertently reported that the plant closed on December 31, 
1996. The plant, however, continues in operation. There is another 
worker group at the subject plant that produce plastic products.
    Since the workers are separately identifiable by product line, the 
Department is amending the worker group certification to limit coverage 
to only those workers of Owens-Illinois Closure, Inc., in Erie, 
Pennsylvania producing metal cans and lids.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include only 
those workers of Owens-Illinois Closure, Inc., who were affected by 
increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33,326 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Owens-Illinois Closure, Inc., Erie, Pennsylvania, 
engaged in employment related to the production of metal cans and 
lids, who became totally or partially separated from employment on 
or after February 28, 1996, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-25869 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 4 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 5 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 6 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 7 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 8 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 9 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 10 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 11 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 12 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 13 of 14
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 111 Filed 05/03/06 Page 14 of 14
#### Verne L. CULBERTSON & Dale Currie v. MAYOR & COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF JACKSON, Miss.

No. 45606.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 26, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1970.

Stennett, Wilkinson, Ward & Tharpe, Jackson, for appellants.

William C. Smith, Jr., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice.

The owners of Lots 8 and IS, Block M, Club Park Subdivision, Part 3, a residential subdivision within the City of Jackson, sought to have the property rezoned from A-l residential to commercial uses for the purpose of constructing a gasoline service station. The City of Jackson denied the petition, the circuit court affirmed, and petitioners appealed to this Court. The lots-involved face Old Canton Road between Colonial Circle and Parkway Drive. This Court said in Lewis v. City of Jackson, 184 So.2d 384 (Miss.1966), that the action of the City in rezoning to allow commercial uses of a block of property across Parkway Drive from the subject property was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. The *Lewis*case and Westminster Presbyterian Church v. City of Jackson, 253 Miss. 495, 176 So.2d 267 (1967), and SunRay DX Oil Co. v. City of Jackson, 209 So.2d 838 (Miss.1968), are authority for affirming the City’s action in rejecting the petition for the rezoning of appellants’ property. In our opinion the petitioners failed to show a material change in circumstances since *Lewis*was decided.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, PATTERSON, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1 - Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)

                        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 RPM Advantage, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report").

I, David R. Pressler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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.

/s/ David R. Pressler
--------------------------
    David R. Pressler
    CEO President and Director


Date  April 25, 2011
      -----------------
STATE CAPITOL 

P.O. BOX 942849 

Room 4112 

SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0056 

(916) 319-2056 

FAX (916) 319-2156 

May 7, 2014 

Secretary Anthony Foxx 

~sstmhllJ 

<1lalifnrnia ~tgislafurt 

V. MANUEL PEREZ 

ASSEMBL YMEMBER, FIFTY-SIXTH DISTRICT 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket DOT -OST -2008-0299 

Dear Secretary F oxx, 

STANDING COMiVIITEES: 

Government Organization 

Insurance 

Jobs, Economic 

Development & the Economy 

Revenue and Taxation 

···: j····· 

,<'""". 

I write to express my concerns with the Department of Transportation's Tentative Order to terminate 

the Essential Air Service (EAS) program in El Centro, California located in Imperial County. I urge 

you to consider the negative economic impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed termination 

of the program. 

The Imperial County Airport has a remarkable track record of surpassing the EAS program 

requirements put forth by the government, as they have dramatically exceeded the enplanement 

minimum in four of the last five fiscal years. The one exception is FY 2013, when Imperial County 

Airport fell just slightly below the ten enplanement threshold, achieveing 9.5 enplanements. 

As you know, the EAS program was put into place to guarantee that small communities, including 

those within Imperial County, continue to be served by certificated air carriers. Over the last several 

years, Imperial County has experienced the highest unemployment rate in the nation. The EAS 

program supports local economic activity and growth, which our region needs more than ever. 

As you prepare the Final Order, I urge you to consider the Imperial Valley's solid track record over the 

last three fiscal years, and I ask that you consider the devastating void that will be left should the 

Department of Transportation decide to terminate the much-needed EAS program at the Imperial 

County Airport. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact my Senior Representative 

Bianka Velez in myEl Centro office at 760-336-8912. Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

\/ /;J _) // v ~- . f(Ji>l 

V. MANUEL PEREZ 

Assemblymember, 56th District 

DISTRICT OFFICES 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY 

45-677 Oasis St., Indio, CA 92201 

(760)342-8047 I FAX (760) 347-8704 

IMPERIAL COUNTY 

1625 W. Main St, #220, El Centro, CA 92243 

(760) 336-8912/ FAX (760) 336-8914
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF POORE BROTHERS, INC.**

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**    | ** ** | **State of Incorporation/Formation** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------|
| La Cometa Properties, Inc.          |       | Arizona                                        |
| Tejas PB Distributing, Inc.         |       | Arizona                                        |
| Poore Brothers – Bluffton, LLC |       | Delaware                                       |
| Boulder Natural Foods, Inc.         |       | Arizona                                        |
| BN Foods, Inc.                      |       | Colorado                                       |

 

----