alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CONSULTANT

        I consent to the use of my report  respecting  the estimated oil reserve
information  as of December  31,  2000,  for the  Montana  and Nevada  producing
properties of FX Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), and the discussion of such report
as  contained  in the  Company's  annual  report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2000 and to the  incorporation by reference of such report as it is
referred to in the Company's annual report into the  registration  statements on
Form S-8 (SEC File Nos. 333-60563, 333-12385 and 333-11417) and the registration
statements  on  Form  S-3  (SEC  File  Nos.  333-08557,   333-16439,  333-26619,
333-79595, 333-80489 and 333-40480).

/s/ Larry D. Krause

Larry D. Krause
Billings, Montana
March 16, 2001
#### Barbara A. DEMOTTS, Petitioner, v. SHORE ACRES EXTENDED CARE FACILITY, Allied Group Underwriters and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 40629.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 8, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
• • ~~-"'~;+..· ·_ .. ___ -~_,-u·· -~~-~ -· ..,!.'? .... ~-....,. ·~--. ., ........ ~--- .,~·:::-~ 

=----"'S"-'~'tate of W1sconsm flf' .. :,;_- --.:. · - ·' 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOU~CES . tt W lk G l§' co a er, overnor 101 S. Webster Street ,~ c th St s t Box 7921 .,§ · - a Y epp, ecre ary 

Madison WI 53707-7921 l·J·· UL 2 3 2013 Telephone 608-266-2621 . Toll Free 1-888-936-7463 

July 15, 20 13 

< ~:-l'· 

';-~ 

~,-~~._ r ~--;,.. ... _.·_·:--, '· : 

- -~ -.· -- .. - ~-·-"l'r' .. · .. 

Ms. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator 

USEPA-Region V (R-19J) 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago IL 60604-3507 

TfY Access via relay- 711 

Subject: Negative declaration for hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators 

Dear Ms. Hedman: 

DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

EPA promulgated revised Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMJWI) on October 6, 2009. On May 13,2013, EPA 

promulgated the Federal Plan for HMWis. On page 28055 of78 FR 28052, EPA identifies Wisconsin as 

potentially submitting a negative declaration. The Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR) is 

pleased to provide you with this letter informing you that there are no HMIWI units as defined by 40 CFR 

60.51(c) currently operating in the state of Wisconsin. Therefore, WDNR requests EPA's approval of this 

negative declaration. 

If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to call Ralph Patterson of my staff at 608-

267-7546. 

Sincerely, 

d~ ~------- Bart Sponseller, Director 

Director, Bureau of Air Management 

cc: Joseph Hoch -AM/7 

Ralph Patterson - AM/7 

Douglas Aburano- U.S. EPA Region V (AR-18J) 

Margaret Sieffert- U.S. EPA Region V (AT-18J) 

Gilberta Alvarez- U.S. EPA Region V (A-18J) 

dnr.wi.go v wisconsin.gov Naturally WISCONSIN 

~'PR/WfED • ONRECYCL!:D PAPER .... ~
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John P. MIRANDA, a/k/a John P. Regan.

No. 62606.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: John P. Miranda, a/k/a John P. Regan, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans. 357 So.2d 557.

Writ denied.
Exhibit (b)(1)

**BYLAWS**

**OF**

**DWS MONEY MARKET TRUST**

 

**Dated as of April 1, 2008**

 

**ARTICLE 1**

**Declaration of Trust and Principal Office**

 

**1.1  Declaration of Trust.**  These Bylaws are adopted pursuant to Section 2.9 of the Declaration of Trust, as from time to time in effect (the "Declaration”), of the Massachusetts business trust established by the Declaration (the "Trust") and shall be subject to the terms of the Declaration.  Any capitalized term not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning given to such term in the Declaration.

 

**1.2  Principal Office of the Trust.**  The principal office of the Trust in Massachusetts shall be located in Boston, Massachusetts, or such other place as shall be determined by the Trustees from time to time.  The Trust may have offices in such other places within or without the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as the Trustees may from time to time determine. 

 

**ARTICLE 2**

**Trustees**

 

**2.1 Chairman; Vice Chairman.**  The Trustees may elect from their own number a Chairman to hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified or until his earlier death, resignation, removal or disqualification.  If the Chairman is present at a meeting of the Trustees or Shareholders, the Chairman shall preside at such meeting.  The Trustees may also elect from their own number a Vice Chairman to hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified or until his earlier death, resignation, removal or disqualification.  If the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Trustees or Shareholders, the Vice Chairman, if any, shall preside at such meeting.  The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall each have such other duties and powers as the Trustees may from time to time determine, but neither shall have individual authority to actfor the Trust as an officer of the Trust.

 

**2.2  Regular Meetings.**  Regular meetings of the Trustees may be held without call or notice at such places (including for these purposes, by means of conference telephone circuit, video conferencing or similar communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other as provided for in the Declaration) as the Trustees may from time to time determine.

 

**2.3  Special Meetings.**  Special meetings of the Trustees may be held at any time and at any place (including for these purposes, by means of conference telephone circuit, video conferencing or similar communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other as provided for in the Declaration) designated in the call of the meeting when called by the Chairman, the President or the Treasurer or by two or more Trustees, sufficient notice thereof as described in Section 2.4 below being given to each Trustee by the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary or by the person calling the meeting.

 

----
****

 

 

 

**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Blue Chip Fund, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| December 28, 2007 | /s/Michael G. Clark |
|-------------------|---------------------|
|              | Michael G. Clark    |
|              | President           |
|              | DWS Blue Chip Fund  |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29470]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; 
Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary will periodically publish summaries of proposed information 
collections projects and solicit public comments in compliance with the 
requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. To request more information on the project or to obtain a copy of 
the information collection plans and instruments, call the OS Reports 
Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology.

Proposed Project 1

    Applicant Background Survey--0990-0208--Extension--This form will 
be used to ask applicants for employment how they learned about a 
vacancy, to make sure that recruitment sources yield qualified women, 
minority and handicapped applicants in compliance with EEOC Management 
Directives. Respondents: Individuals; Annual Number of Respondents: 
310,000; Annual Frequency of Response: one time; Average Burden per 
Response: 2 minutes; Total Annual Burden: 10,333 hours.

Proposed Project 2

    HHS Procurement--Solicitations and Contracts--Extension--0990-
0115--This clearance request covers general information collection 
requirements of the procurement process such as technical proposals and 
statements of work.--Respondents: State or local governments, 
businesses or other for-profit, non-profit institutions, small 
businesses; Annual Number of Respondents: 8415; Frequency of Response: 
one time; Average Burden per Response: 249.68 hours; Estimated Annual 
Burden: 2,101,005 hours.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Send comments to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, 
Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington 
DC, 20201. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this 
notice.

    Dated: October 30, 1997.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 97-29470 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
Exhibit (n)

**DWS TARGET FUND**

**MULTI-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLAN**

 

WHEREAS, the investment company adopting this Multi-Distribution System Plan (the “Fund” and the Fund’s underlying portfolios, each a “Series”) is an open-end management investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”);

 

WHEREAS, Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (“DeIM”) serves as investment adviser and DWS Scudder Distributors, Inc. serves as principal underwriter for the Fund;

 

WHEREAS, the Fund has established a Multi-Distribution System for certain Series enabling the Fund, as more fully reflected in its prospectuses, to offer investors the option of purchasing shares of such Series (a) with a front-end sales load (which may vary among Series) and a Rule 12b-1 plan providing for a service fee (“Class A shares”); (b) without a front-end sales load, but subject to a Contingent Deferred Sales Charge (“CDSC”) (which may  vary among Series), and a Rule 12b-1 plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class C shares”); (c)   without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, a distribution fee or a service fee (“Class S shares”); and (d)  without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, a distribution fee or a service fee (“Institutional Class shares”); and 

 

WHEREAS, Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act permits open-end management investment companies  to issue multiple classes of voting stock representing interests in the same portfolio notwithstanding Sections 18(f)(1) and 18(i) under the 1940 Act if, among other things, such investment companies adopt a written plan setting forth the separate arrangement and expense allocation of each class and any related conversion features or exchange privileges;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Fund, wishing to be governed by Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act, hereby adopts this  Multi-Distribution System Plan for certain  Series having a  Multi-Distribution System  as follows:

 

1.        Each class of shares of a Series  will represent interests in the same portfolio of investments of the Series, and be identical in all respects to each other class, except as set forth below.  The only differences among the various classes of shares of the Series will relate solely to:  (a) different distribution fee payments associated with any Rule 12b-1 Plan for a particular class of shares and any other costs relating to implementing or amending such Rule 12b-1 Plan (including obtaining shareholder approval of such Rule 12b-1 Plan or any amendment thereto), which will be borne solely by shareholders of such classes; (b) different service fees; (c)  different account minimums; (d) different class expenses, as defined in Section 2(b) below; (e) different voting rights related toany Rule 12b-1 Plan affecting a specific class of shares; (f) different exchange privileges; and (g) different conversion features.

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Cary ANDERSON.

No. 62340.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Cary Anderson applying for supervisory and remedial writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by review in the event of conviction.

DIXON, J., to grant the writ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 15, 2023

NO. 03-23-00728-CV

Nelson Partners, LLC; Nelson Brothers Property Management, Inc. d/b/a Nelson Partners 

Property Management, Inc.; NP Skyloft Equity IB; and Patrick Nelson, Appellants

v.

Burgundy 523 Offshore Fund, LTD; Axonic Special Opportunities SBL Master Fund, LP; 

Axonic Credit Opportunities Master Fund, LP; TCG Skyloft Owner, LLC; and Does 1-10, 

Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 26, 2023. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Nelson Partners, LLC; Nelson Brothers Property 

Management, Inc. d/b/a Nelson Partners Property Management, Inc.; NP Skyloft Equity IB; and 

Patrick Nelson have not prosecuted their appeal and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk 

of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellants

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 7

- 60559 Summary Calendar

ABDULKARIM WARSAME MOHAMED , Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR , U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 763 046

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abdulkarim Warsame Mohamed petitions this court to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeal s (BIA) concluding t hat his appeal of an order of removal was untimely. The decision also explained, in response to a request by Mohamed for assistance filing a motion to reopen , that such a
motion must be filed with the immigration judge in light of Mohamed’s failure to timely appeal

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 23, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60559 Document: 00514968846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2019N o. 1 7

- 60559

2 For the first time in his pro se petition to this court , Mohamed offers
several reasons why he missed the 30

- day deadline for filing an appeal before
the BIA: because he did not have the transcript and could not appeal without it, he did not know what an appeal was, no one informed him of the deadline, he was in shock over the denial of his asylum request, and the Governmen t waived his right to appeal. We liberally construe these assertions as arguing that the BIA should have exercised its discretion to consider the untimely appeal. See, e.g. , Le v. Holder , 340 F. App’x 201, 204

- 07 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, for the f irst time, Mohamed asserts that change s in the
conditions within his home country of Somalia since 2018 ha ve made it more dangerous for him to return

. We do not review an order by the BIA unless “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Failure to exhaust an issue creates a jurisdi ctional bar as to that issue.”)

. An alien fails to exhaust administrative remedies for an issue when that issue “is not
raised in the first instance before the BIA

-- either on direct appeal or in a motion to reopen.” Roy , 389 F.3d at 137 (internal quotati on marks and citation omitted).
Because Mohamed did not exhaust the issues raised in his petition for
review , it is DISMISSED

. Case: 17-60559 Document: 00514968846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas Miller, the chief financial officer of TeleNav, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of 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,

(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (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) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/S/    DOUGLAS MILLERDouglas MillerChief Financial OfficerDate: September 24, 2010
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 21

- 1865

___________________________

Rafael Antonio Segovia

- Yanes

lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

Submitted: September 2 8 , 2022 Filed: October 3, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD

, ERICKSON , and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Segovia

- Yanes, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of his application
for cancellation of removal. Segovia argues that removing him would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his American

- citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We will not consider this argument because Segovia-2- failed to raise it before the Board. See Bakor v. Barr , 958 F.3d 732, 739 (8th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 2566 (2021); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial review). W e accordingly dismiss the petition for review.

______________________________
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
                                   One Beacon Street
                                   Boston, MA 02108

                                   December 2, 2008



Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20549



RE:      DWS Japan Equity Fund (the "Fund"), a series of DWS Investors Funds,
         Inc. (the "Corporation"); (Reg. Nos. 333-7008 and 811-08227)



Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the
Corporation hereby certifies that the form of Prospectuses and Statements of
Additional Information that would have been filed on behalf of the Fund pursuant
to Rule 497(c) upon the effectiveness of Post-Effective Amendment No. 39 to the
Corporation's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (the "Amendment"), do not
differ from that contained in the Amendment, which is the most recent amendment
to such Registration Statement and was filed electronically on November 26,
2008.



Please direct any comments or questions on this filing to the undersigned at
617-295-2565.


                                    Very truly yours,


                                    /s/Caroline Pearson
                                    Caroline Pearson, Esq.
                                    Managing Director
                                    Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.


cc:      Mary Carty, Esq., Willkie Farr & Gallagher
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2013

N o. 04

- 13

- 00454

- CV and 04

- 13

- 00455

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.S.,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas Tr ial Court No. 2013MH1871 and 2013MH1959 Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On March 27, 2013 , appellant filed a motion to consolidate appeal cause numbers 04

- 13

- 00 454

- CV and 04

- 13

- 00 455

- CV. Appellant ’s Certificate of C onference states appellant’s counsel attempted to confer with the State , but was informed no attorney in the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office has yet been assigned to the appeals. We have reviewed the cases, and agree the two cas es are similar enough to treat them as one case.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED and it is ORDERED that the two cases shall be consolidated for briefing and argument purposes (if argument is requested and granted). The parties shall file motions, brie fs, and other pleadings as if the two appeals were one case, but shall put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. The record s , however, shall remain separated. If oral argument is requested and granted, both cases shall be argued together, as a si ngle appeal, and the total time limit for each side at oral argument shall equal the ordinary time limit for a single appeal. The court will dispose of the entire case with the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.

Maria E. Fattahi , who is the court re porter responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s record in both cases , is reminded that t he record s were due July 22, 2013.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of July, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of C ourt