alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE. 

Washington. DC 20590 

JUN 1 2 2019 

Jn Reply Refer To: HCR-20 

DOT# 2019-0 153 

Subject: Dismissal of Complaint DOT# 2019-0153 

Dear 

This letter is to infonn you that the Federal Highway Administration (Fl-lWA) Office of Civil 

Rights has determined that it will dismiss the above complaint, which alleged violations that may 

be related to Title Vl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Department ofTransportation 

(USDOT) Title VI implementation regulations at 49 C.F.R. Pmi 21 and/or FHWA's Title VI 

regulations at 23 C.F.R. Part 200 (hereinafter Tide VI). Title VI prnhibits discrimination on the 

basis ofrace, color, or national origin in progratns and activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance. To be accepted for investigation, a. complaint must meet the jurisdictional 

requirements described in FHWA 's Investigations Manual, which confonns to the U.S. 

Department ofJustice's procedures and standards for investigating complaints ofdiscrimination. 

First, the complaint must be in writing. Second, it must describe an alleged discriminatory act 

th8t, if tmc, would fall under FHWA's jurisdiction and potentially violate FHW A's Title VI 

regulations. Finally, it must be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory act. 

rn your complaint, you allege the MPO and FOOT violated Title VI when they failed to properly 

engage the African-American community during the Central Manatee Network Alternatives 

Analysis (CMNAA) process. In addition, you allege the community would disproportionately 

and adversely bear the effects of the projects. 

After careful consideration, the FHWA has concluded it will dismiss this complaint because the 

projects identified in the Central Manatee Network Alternatives Analysis are still in the early 

stages of the project development process. FHW A will cootinuc to monitor and engage with the 

Florida Department ofTransportation and the MPO closely to ensure compliance with Title VI 

and other federal laws. FHWA notes that nothing in this Jetter precludes you or another 

complainant from filing a Title VI complaint reJated to the CMNAA projects at a later date or for 

FHWA to initiate an investigation in the future based on new information it obtains. 

Please note that you may file a private suit at any time pursuant to section 60 l of Title VI. If you 

have any questions about this complaint with FIIWA, please contact Erich Hines at 202-366-

599 l or erich.hines@dot.gov. 

Page I of2 
Sincerely, 

Division Manager 

Coordination and Compliance Division 

cc: James Christian, Division Administrator, FHW A FL Division Office 

David Hawk, Chief Operating Officer, FHW A FL Division Office 

Carey Shepherd, Civil Rights Program Coordinator, FHW A FL Division Office 

Jim Esselman, Senior Attorney-Advisor, FHW A Office of Chief Counsel 

Yvette Rivera, Associate Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Division, 

Departmental Office of Civil Rights 

Kevin Resler, National Title VI Program Coordinator, FHWA Office ofCivil Rights
FLMA - Unstable Slope Management Program New Slope Event Form Rev 1.03 (December 2017)

Prepared by: Landslide Technology, WFLHD, USDA FS, BLM, BIA and NPS

NEW SLOPE EVENT FORM – OBSERVER INFORMATION

Observer Name: Today’s Date:

Phone No.: Email:

Date of Event: About Date of Event (circle one): Known, Approximate, Unknown

Observer Comments/Sketch:

EVENT INFORMATION

Road/Trail No.: ⃝ Trail State: ⃝ Road

Hazard Type (select all that apply): Rockfall | Landslide/Erosion | Debris Flow | Snow Avalanche

Beginning Mile Marker: Ending Mile Marker: Photo # Range:

Event 

Coord.

Latitude (xx.xxxxx): Datum: Length of Affected Road/Trail (ft): (1m = 3 ft):

Longitude (-xxx.xxxxx):

Road/Trail Conditions after Failure: Blocked | Blocked/Detours exist around failure | Partially blocked but passable |

Ditch full of debris | Route threatened by unstable slope

Size of Largest Fallen Rock: No. of Rocks: Estimated Volume of Debris:

⃝ Less than 3 inches (< 8 cm) - baseball size or smaller

⃝ Less than 1 foot (< 30 cm) - basketball size or smaller

⃝ 1 to 3 feet (30 - 100 cm) - fits through standard doorway

⃝ Greater than 3 feet (> 1 m) thousands of pounds

⃝ 1

⃝ 2

⃝ 3 - 5

⃝ 5 - 10

⃝ 10+

⃝ < 5 ft3 (< 0.15 m3 ) – wheelbarrow or less

⃝ < 2.5 yd3 (< 2 m3 ) – pickup truck or less

⃝ < 10 yd3 (< 8 m3 ) – dump truck or less

⃝ > 10 yd3 (> 8 m3 ) – several dump trucks

Description of Event Location (select all that apply): Possible Cause of Event (select all that apply):

⃝ Above road/trail

⃝ Below road/trail

⃝ At a culvert

⃝ Above river

⃝ Above coast

⃝ Burned area

⃝ Deforested slope

⃝ Urban

⃝ Mine

⃝ Retaining wall

⃝ Natural slope

⃝ Engineered slope

⃝ Unknown

⃝ Other (Please describe in Observer Comments)

⃝ Rain

⃝ Thunderstorm/downpour

⃝ Continuous rain (> than 24 

hours)

⃝ Hurricane/cyclone

⃝ Flooding

⃝ Snowfall/snowmelt

⃝ Prolonged freezing

⃝ High temperatures

⃝ Other (Please describe in 

Observer Comments)

⃝ Long-term creep/poor soil cond.

⃝ Earthquake

⃝ Volcanic activity

⃝ Leaking pipe

⃝ Mining

⃝ Construction

⃝ Dam embankment collapse

⃝ No obvious cause

⃝ Unknown cause

Did deaths, injuries, or damages coincide with the landslide/rockfall?

⃝ Yes

⃝ No

If yes, please describe:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 26, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-12008 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cr-00294-GAP-KRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANTONIO RIVERA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(June 26, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
H. Kyle Fletcher, appointed counsel for Jose Antonio Rivera in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues

of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Rivera’s conviction

and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
# L_2012206EN.01002301.xml

| 2.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 206/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 206/23

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 277 of 21 October 2005
  )

On page 1, in recital 2:

for:

| ‘(2) | According to the Treaty, in working out the common agricultural policy and the special methods for its application, account is to be taken of the particular nature of agricultural activity which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various rural areas.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(2)

According to the Treaty, in working out the common agricultural policy and the special methods for its application, account is to be taken of the particular nature of agricultural activity which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various rural areas.’,

read:

| ‘(2) | According to the Treaty, in working out the common agricultural policy and the special methods for its application, account is to be taken of the particular nature of agricultural activity which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions.’; |
| --- | --- |

‘(2)

According to the Treaty, in working out the common agricultural policy and the special methods for its application, account is to be taken of the particular nature of agricultural activity which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions.’;

on page 17, in Article 28(1)(c):

for:

‘..., support may be granted only to those which are made by micro-enterprises, as referred in paragraph 2, in order to comply with a newly introduced Community standard. ...’,

read:

‘..., support may be granted only to those which are made by micro-enterprises, as referred to in paragraph 3, in order to comply with a newly introduced Community standard. ...’.

---
Exhibit 10.61

            Compensation Arrangement for Thomas B. Lovejoy and Others

         FX Energy, Inc. compensates the following named individuals, who serve
in the capacities indicated, under the oral arrangements described:

         Thomas B. Lovejoy, Chairman, commenced receiving an annual salary of
$151,307 on January 1, 2001. Effective July 1, 2002, Mr. Lovejoy agreed to waive
the payment of 50% of his salary until the board of directors determines that
the financial condition of the Company is such that his regular compensation can
be resumed.

         Peter L. Raven, director, receives a director's fee of $4,500 per
quarter, payable quarterly, together with seven-year options to purchase 10,000
shares of common stock at an exercise price equivalent to the market price of
the common stock as of the date of option grant. In 2002, the Company granted
options to Mr. Raven to purchase 10,000 shares on August 14, 2002, with an
exercise price of $2.40 per share. The option vests one-third on the first
anniversary of the date of grant and each anniversary thereafter until fully
vested. On July 1, 2002, Mr. Raven agreed to waive payment of his cash
director's fee until such time as the board of directors determines that the
financial condition of the Company is such that his regular director's fee can
be resumed.

         Clay Newton, director, receives seven-year options to purchase 10,000
shares of common stock at an exercise price equivalent to the market price of
the common stock as of the date of option grant. On August 14, 2002, the Company
granted options to Mr. Newton to purchase 10,000 shares with an exercise price
of $2.40 per share. The option vests one-third on the first anniversary of the
date of grant and each anniversary thereafter until fully vested.

         In addition, the Company pays Mr. Newton a consulting fee of $60.00 per
hour, except that effective July 1, 2002, Mr. Newton agreed to waive payment of
50% of the cash compensation payable to him until such time as the board of
directors determines that the financial condition of the Company is such that
his regular consulting fee can be resumed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 30, 2020

NO. 03-20-00155-CR

Ryan M. Carranza, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt rendered by the trial court. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Amendment Five to Employment Agreement - Dorr



EXHIBIT 10.7 (vi) 
 
AMENDMENT FIVE 
TO 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 
Effective January 1, 2003, this AMENDMENT FIVE TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT by and between Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., an Indiana insurance company (the “Company”) and Marjorie W. Dorr (the “Executive”) hereby amends the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) between the parties
dated as of the 1st day of January, 1999, as follows: 
 

	1.	 	Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the termination date and inserting in place thereof the 31st day of December, 2005. 

 

	2.	 	The first paragraph of Section 11 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the provision “one (1) year” and inserting in place thereof “two (2)
years.” 

 

	3.	 	Section 16(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the provision “one (1) year” and inserting in place thereof “two (2) years.”


 

	4.	 	All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have duly executed this AMENDMENT FIVE TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT effective as of the day and year first above written. 
 
 

	 Marjorie W. Dorr
  
	 	 	 	 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.
  

	
	 /s/    Marjorie W. Dorr
	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 /s/    Larry C. Glasscock

	
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	  
 Name: Larry C. Glasscock
  
 Title: President and CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                              15,581,244
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                        3,018,251
<ALLOWANCES>                           437,000
<INVENTORY>                            351,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    20,260,493
<PP&E>                               6,706,316
<DEPRECIATION>                       1,876,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      26,394,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                7,082,562
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 1,023
<OTHER-SE>                          19,311,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        26,394,982
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     7,073,167
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        3,530,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    12,058,264
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       253,029
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      17,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (7,783,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (7,783,713)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                        (7,783,713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0.76)


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Medcom USA, Inc.., (the ""Company"") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ""Report""), I,
William P. Williams, 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 to the best of my 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 operations of the Company.

MEDCOM USA, INC.
By /s/William P. Williams
   ----------------------
William P. Williams
Chairman, CEO
(Sole executive officer of the registrant)
September 28, 2007
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

d1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

143058(7) 

JASON HANKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 143058 

 AGC: 2627/10 

 2674/10 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 6, 

2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00068

- CR

EX PARTE HEATHER MARIE RYAN

From the 443rd District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 21

- 015

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

Appellant Heather Marie Ryan appeals the trial court ’ s order denying her request
for a reduction in bail. By letter dated August 2, 2021, the Court directed Appellant to

file a brief within ten (10) days. Appellant wa s admonis hed that a failure to timely
comply would result in the case being abated to the trial court to conduct a hearing to
determine why no brief has been filed and wh ether she still desire d to prosecute this
appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2). M o r e than ten ( 10) days have passed, and Appellant
has not filed a brief or otherwise responded

.
It is therefore ordered that this appeal is abated to the 443rd Judicial District Court

in Ellis County, Texas for the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2). The
trial court shall hold the hearing within twenty (20) days. The court reporter shallEx Parte Ryan Page 2

complete a nd file a record with this C ourt within ten (1 0) days after the hearing

concludes

.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray and Jus t i c e Johnso n Appeal abated Order delivered and filed August 18, 2021
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paulita M. LaPlante, 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, the Annual Report of Optical Sensors Incorporated on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Optical Sensors Incorporated.

March 31, 2006



By:

/s/ Paulita M. LaPlanteName:

Paulita M. LaPlanteTitle:

Chief Executive Officer


I, Wesley G. Peterson, 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, the Annual Report of Optical Sensors Incorporated on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Optical Sensors Incorporated.

March 31, 2006



By:

/s/ Wesley G. PetersonName:

Wesley G. PetersonTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
#### Alonso PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-904.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 10, 1970.

Alonso Perry, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

DYAX CORP.

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

 

 
| **NAME**           | ** ** | **PARENT**         | ** ** | **STATE OR  COUNTRY OF  INCORPORATION** | ** ** |
|--------------------|------------|--------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|
| Dyax Holdings B.V. |       | Dyax Corp.         |       | Netherlands                             |       |
|               |       |               |       |                                    |       |
| Dyax B.V.          |       | Dyax Holdings B.V. |       | Netherlands                             |       |
|               |       |               |       |                                    |       |
| Dyax S.A.          |       | Dyax Corp.         |       | Belgium                                 |       |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Corrpro Companies, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-58376) on Form S-8 of Corrpro Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries (Company) of
our report dated June 20, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Corrpro Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2003, which
report appears in the March 31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Corrpro
Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries.

Our report dated June 20, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph that states the
Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and was not in compliance
with certain financial covenants contained in its banking agreements. These
matters raises substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.

Our report refers to changes in the methods of accounting in fiscal 2003 for
goodwill and other intangible assets.


Cleveland, Ohio
June 30, 2003