alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  C HARLES F RANKLIN M URDOCH , Jr.,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-55665 v. D.C. No. R OY C ASTRO , Warden; B ILL CV-99-06900-



#  L OCKYER , Attorney General, RSWL Attorney General of the State of ORDER California, Respondents-Appellees. 

# 

Filed October 9, 2008

ORDER KOZINSKI , Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

14565PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or 

accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly 

suspect evidence," Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 

(1976). Regardless of its severity, a sentence that is within the statutory 

limits is not 'cruel and unusual punishment unless the statute fixing 

punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably 

disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." Blume v. 

State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting CuIverson V. 

State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979)); see also Harmelin v. 

Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion) (explaining 

that Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between 

crime and sentence; it forbids only an extreme sentence that is grossly 

disproportionate to the crime). 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

or impose a cruel or unusual sentence. The sentences imposed are within 

the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.165, NRS 

199.480(1)(a), (b), NRS 200.030, NRS 200.320, NRS 200.380. Appellant 

does not allege that the statutes are unconstitutional or that the district 

court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence when imposing 

sentence. Despite the mitigating considerations presented to the district 

court, the sentence imposed is not grossly disproportionate to the crime: 

appellant planned and executed a brutal murder for a minor pecuniary 

gain. And no relief is warranted based on the district court's failure to 

state its reasons for the sentence imposed. Appellant did not object, so we 

review for plain error. See NRS 178.602 (providing that plain errors or 

defects affecting substantial rights may be addressed even if not raised 

below). Appellant has not identified any controlling authority establishing 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 19474 410149 
Douglas 

C kut rut, 

error and we decline his request to adopt a new procedural requirement 

that a sentencing court must state the• reasons for its decision when 

imposing a life-without-parole sentence. Appellant fails to demonstrate 

plain error requiring a new sentencing hearing. See Green v. State, 119 

Nev. 542, 545, 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (describing plain error review). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

c..t.foa J. 

Parraguirre 

Cherry 

J. 

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge 

Special Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

10) I94Th
Exhibit
32.2





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER OF GREEN CARBON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.





In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Green Carbon
Technologies Corp. for the year ended June 30, 2010, the undersigned, Thomas
Puzzo, Chief Financial Officer of Green Carbon Technologies Corp., does hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and





(2) the
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June
30, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Green Carbon Technologies Corp.





Date:  October
      12, 2010/s/
      David RendinaDavid
      RendinaPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer, principal
                accounting
      officer, and principal financial
officer
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

**Waterfowl Identification in the Central Flyway**

##       Black-Bellied Tree Duck (Pe-che-che-ne Duck)    

----

**Sexes Identical**
****

**Body:** Medium-sized duck, up to 2 pounds, 18-22 inches long.     Light cinnamon chest and lower neck with distinct black belly. Sides of head     ashy gray. Bill bright pink. Long pinkish legs. **Wings:** Lesser,     middle, greater and primary coverts white. **Voice:** Shrill     whistling *pe-che-che-ne.***In Flight:** Long legs extend     behind body. Black belly evident. **Note:** Restricted to South     Texas and Mexico.   

----

Previous Section
Return to Contents
Next Section

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/waterfwl/blkbelly.htm		Page Contact Information: Webmaster		Page Last Modified: Thursday, 03-Aug-2006 11:32:16 EDT		Sioux Falls, SD [sdww54]
##### 



Exhibit 32.A 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 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2005, of
El Paso CGP Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas L. Foshee, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify
(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Douglas L. FosheeDouglas L. FosheePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) 
June 20, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.02**

 

**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 FX Energy, 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”), I, Clay Newton, Principal Financial 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, 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/ Clay Newton

Clay Newton

Principal Financial Officer

March 16, 2009

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-311.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ARMENIA 

Signed at Washington November 3, 2009 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ARMENIA 

Scientific Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Washington 

 November 3, 2009; 

 Entered into force March 11, 2010. 

 With annexes. 

 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 10.3



                            ARBOR HEALTH CARE COMPANY

                  1996 BONUS PLANS FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS



The 1996 bonus formulae are as follows:



S. T. Bennett    1.24% of pretax income over $13.8 million up to a
                 maximum of $48,000 plus up to $20,000 based on attaining 
                 goals.

P.C. Borra       3.86% of pretax income over $13.8 million plus up to $50,000
                 dependent on achievement of qualitative goals as determined by
                 the Compensation Committee.

R.J. Clark       1.7% of pretax income over $13.8 million up to a maximum
                 of $66,000 plus up to $25,000 based on attaining
                 goals. Provided, however, that the bonus will be reduced by
                 $4,000 for certain defined Center survey deficiency citations.
                 However, the maximum reduction shall not exceed $8,000.

D.R. Smith       0.77% of pretax income over $13.8 million up to
                 a maximum of $30,000 plus up to $10,000 based on attaining
                 goals.

A.K. Vrable      Incentive compensation, equal to an amount not to exceed
                 $50,000 based upon the profitability of the Arbor pharmacy
                 business, plus up to $10,000 based on attaining goals.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEXANDRA SALINAS,

Appellant,

vs.

AUSTIN-RIVERSIDE OZ SPE LLC

d/b/a ARISE RIVERSIDE,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00205-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# C-1-CV-22-001798)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We 

further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for 

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3851 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

90 McCamly Street South in Battle Creek, Michigan, as the ‘‘Sojourner 

Truth Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2024 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 90 McCamly Street South in Battle Creek, 

Michigan, as the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SOJOURNER TRUTH POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 90 McCamly Street South in 

6 Battle Creek, Michigan, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3851 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### CHARLES SALES CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INTER-ISLAND SHIPPING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, trading and doing business as Florida Lines, Appellee.

No. 70-531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 1, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<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>                                         617,003
<SECURITIES>                                29,517,797
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    931,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,158,488
<PP&E>                                       1,081,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                 488,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,369,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,319,573
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        83,415
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,966,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,369,197
<SALES>                                        163,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,068
<CGS>                                        1,369,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,369,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,940,758
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,385,272)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,385,272)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,385,272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### Mary E. BEAMISH and Delbert J. Devendorf, Appellants, v. DETROIT AUTOMOBILE INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE, Appellee.

No. 70-75.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3662 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3662

**Commission Decision of 24/01/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3662 - XSTRATA / WMC RESOURCES) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

Directorate E - Industry | |Brussels, 24.01.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/200315

To the notifying party

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.3662 – XSTRATA/WMC RESOURCES

Notification of 10/12/2004 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1]

Publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 315, 21/12/2004, page 2.

1. On 10/12/2004, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 by which the undertaking Xstrata plc (“Xstrata”, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the undertaking WMC Resource Limited (“WMC”, Australia) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

The Xstrata Group is an international natural resources group based in Zug, Switzerland. The Xstrata group is the world’s largest exporter of thermal coal. Furthermore it produces coal, copper, zinc, gold, silver and alloys.

WMC is a major diversified Australian minerals explorer and producer. The main business is the discovery, development, production, processing and marketing of minerals, metals and chemicals. WMC primarily produces nickel, copper, uranium oxide, gold, silver and phosphate fertilisers.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph b, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission, signed

NEELIE KROES

Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1.

[2] Available on DG COMP website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
# DailyTreasuryYieldCurveRateData
NUMBER 13-10-00155-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

TEXAS GULF TRAWLING, INC., 

MARINE RAILWAY, INC., ZIMCO MARINE, INC., 

TEXGULMARCO COMPANY, INC., WALTER

ZIMMERMAN AND HARLEY DALE LONDRIE, Apellants,

v.

RCA TRAWLERS & SUPPLY, INC. 

AND PATRICIO AHUMADA, JR., Appellees.

 

On appeal from the 103rd District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Texas Gulf Trawling, Inc., Marine Railway, Inc., Zimco Marine, Inc., 

Texgulmarco Company, Inc., Walter Zimmerman, and Harley Dale, argue by four 
2

issues that the trial court erred in granting a bill of review filed by appellees, RCA 

Trawlers & Supply, Inc. and Patricio Ahumada Jr., in trial court cause number 

2006-07-3152-D. Appellees filed their bill of review seeking to set aside a judgment in 

trial court cause number 94-09-4693-D dismissing that cause for want of prosecution. 

After a jury trial on the merits of the bill of review, the jury found that neither appellees 

nor their counsel had received a ADrop Docket Notice@ or AOrder of Dismissal For Want 

of Prosecution@ in the underlying case. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury=s 

verdict and entered an order on January 11, 2010, granting the bill of review and 

vacating the AOrder of Dismissal For Want of Prosecution@ previously issued in trial 

court cause number 94-09-4693-D. This appeal followed.

On June 30, 2010, appellees filed a motion arguing that we lack jurisdiction over 

the appeal because the challenged order is interlocutory. Appellees also asked that 

we impose sanctions upon appellants for filing a frivolous appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

45.

We agree that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. An appeal may be 

prosecuted only from a final judgment which disposes of all issues and parties in the 

case. Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990). A bill of review which 

sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of all the issues of the case on the 

merits is interlocutory in nature and is not an appealable final judgment. Jordan v. 

Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (citing Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705; Warren v. 

Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1967)).
3

Because appellants have not shown that the merits of the underlying case, trial 

court cause number 94-09-4693, have been ruled on and the case disposed of, we 

have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See id. We therefore grant appellees=

motion in part and dismiss the instant appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a). Further, having fully considered appellees= request for sanctions, we deny 

that request. See TEX. R. APP. P. 45.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

18th day of November, 2010.
# L_2006298EN.01003201.xml

| 27.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 298/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 298/32

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 of 15 December 2005 publishing, for 2006, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 24 December 2005
  )

On page 22 in Annex I, line ‘ex 0207 12 10’:

for:

‘Plucked and gutted’,

read:

‘Plucked and drawn’.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00497-CV

Ruth Hughs in her Official Capacity as the Texas Secretary of State, Appellant

v.

Move Texas Action Fund, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-20-005507, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss 

her interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. Hughs argues that her appeal is moot because

appellee Move Texas Action Fund has filed a notice of nonsuit in the district court. We agree 

that the nonsuit has rendered the case moot. See University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston 

v. Estate of Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100–01 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)

(dismissing pending appeal from denial of plea to jurisdiction because nonsuit of all claims 

rendered case moot). We grant Hughs’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See id. at 101.
2

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 18, 2020