alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 29, 2015 

In The 

QCourt of §ppeals 

jf iftb IDistrict of \!Gexas at IDallas 

No. 05-15-01069-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.M., A MINOR CHILD 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-19569-Z 

ORDER 

We DENY appellant's December 28, 2015 second motion for additional time to file brief. 

We ORDER appellant's brief to be filed by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, 

2015. If appellant fails to do so, this Court will exercise available remedies, which 

may include the removal of present counsel, ordering the appointment of new counsel, and 

other relief this Court deems appropriate. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission 

to the Honorable David Lopez, Presiding Judge ofthe 256th Judicial District Court, and the parties. 

Is/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT nF 1\PPEM.S, 5th DIST. 

JAN I 5 LUH:i 

LISA lVlATZ 

CLERK, 5th DISTR!CT 
<rnurt nf App.cals 

lftftl1 iHBtrid nf wexa11 at Dalla11 

George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building 

600 Commerce Street. Suitt 200 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

RETUR

TO SEN

CASE: 05-15-01069-CV 

JUSTIN F '" "Ar>,..TDIYC 

t·l X.:: 7 s D 

F: E "'-·j R· 0 

SANDER 

TDCJ # 0 

1100 HW 

VENUS,. 

r"¥ _;}-T 

u L E --y-o 

F.:·c 

7 5 z 0 2 @6 6 3 !. 

0"' ,..) \<._.. 7S 0266 

,j;\\1\'ll 

l • 

I I !p!lq }ii q
#### Manuel A. Moran MILIAN, Appellant, v. Jack COHEN d/b/a H & J Co., Appellee.

No. 69-647.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 3, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Harold Raymond HOOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-832.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 27, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Rudolph ROBINSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-793.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 11, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alen S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Barry J. Clyman, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., CHARLES CARROLL, J., and LESTER M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendant below following his conviction for robbery, the appellant’s contentions that the trial court *241erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence (a gun) on the claim that it was the product of an unlawful search, and in denying his motion for continuance made during the trial, have been considered in the light of the record and briefs, and are held to be without merit. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### Alicia Acosta DELGADO, Appellant, v. Cristobal Salvador DELGADO, Appellee.

No. 71-724.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### James O. EVANS and Helen G. Evans, husband and wife, Appellants, v. LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-610.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 5, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1022 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1022

To amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the 
fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating 
                       within the Boundary Line.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2013

  Mr. Brown (for himself, Mr. Portman, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Vitter) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the 
fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating 
                       within the Boundary Line.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION.

    Section 3503(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2008,'' and inserting ``2028,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


January 26, 2021


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 504 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on January 25, 2021, in
accordance with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We
consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the
Registration Statement (No. 333-250883) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the
sale of the Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
#### GOLDEN ISLES UTILITIES CORP., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, County of Dade, Respondent.

No. 71-1033.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 17, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Jacob B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Claranne B., Appellant; Genesee County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 4)

[656 NYS2d 999]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Rhiannon B.*(237 AD2d 935 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—Neglect.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          26,767
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,344,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                   130,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,082,410
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,428,169
<PP&E>                                      13,145,401
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,909,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,336,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,637,154
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,038
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,960,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,336,028
<SALES>                                     17,276,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,276,380
<CGS>                                       15,472,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,472,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (45,086)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               130,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             203,738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (963,432)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (93,395)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (870,037)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (870,037)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022284EN.01003602.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/36

---

Order of the General Court of 29 April 2022 — Abenante and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-527/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital COVID Certificate - Freedom of movement for persons - Restrictions - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 284/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Stefania Abenante (Ferrare, Italy) and the 423 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Sandri, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, P. López-Carceller and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and S. Scarpa Ferraglio, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants are seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application to intervene.

| 3. | Ms Stefania Abenante and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Stefania Abenante and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court.

| 4. | The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE

This first Amendment to Lease dated this 14th day of August, 2000 by and between
Dina Corporation, successor in interest to Diamond Parking, Inc., as Lessor and
NeoRx Corporation, a Washington Corporation, as Tenant.

                                    RECITALS

        WHEREAS Landlord and Tenant did enter into a Lease dated February 15,
1996, and,

        WHEREAS Landlord and Tenant desire to amend said Lease with an effective
date of June 1, 2001, and

        NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant do agree as follows:

                             BASIC LEASE INFORMATION

SECTION 3 - TERM. The extended lease term shall commence on the June 1, 2001 and
shall terminate on May 31, 2006.

SECTION 4 - RENT. Rent for the extended lease term shall be as spelled out in
SECTION 38 (D) AND 38 (E) OF THE ORIGINAL LEASE DATED FEBRUARY 15, 1996.

SECTION 38 - RENEWAL OPTION. Tenant has exercised its final five (5) year
option.

All other terms and conditions of the original Lease dated February 15, 1996
shall remain in full force and effect.

<PAGE>   2
Re:  First Amendment to Lease between
     Dina Corporation, Lessor and NeoRx Corporation, Tenant
     August 11, 2000
     Page Two

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to
Lease as of the date first written above.

                                            Lessor:

                                            DINA CORPORATION


                                            By /s/ DIANE FOREMAN
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:
                                                    ----------------------------
                                               Title: President
                                                     ---------------------------

                                            Tenant:

                                            NEORX CORPORATION,
                                            A Washington Corporation

                                            By /s/ RICHARD L. ANDERSON
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  Richard L. Anderson
                                                     ---------------------------
                                               Title:    President & COO
                                                     ---------------------------
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Scot H. DOUGLAS, Appellee.

No. 73-356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 20, 1974.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960).

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
#### Stephen Balestra, Jr., Appellant, v Rita Donohue, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 385]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated August 30, 1995, as denied his cross motion to vacate an award of interim counsel fees to the deceased wife, and for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims of the deceased wife.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s wife died before he made his cross motion and before the issuance of the order denying that cross motion. There was no effective substitution prior to the issuance of that order as required by CPLR 1015. Thus, the provision of the order appealed from is a nullity, and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal *(see, Wilson v Rosen,*166 *238AD2d 441; *Cooper v Volk,*157 AD2d 766). Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
INDEX TO EXHIBITS


    
15.1   Letter of Independent Accountants regarding Awareness
       of Incorporation by Reference.

27.1   Financial Data Schedule.  (Exhibit 27.1 is being
       submitted as an exhibit only in the electronic format
       of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q being submitted
       to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Exhibit
       27.1 shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section
       11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 18 of the
       Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Section 323 of the
       Trust Indenture Act, or otherwise be subject to the
       liabilities of such sections, nor shall it be deemed a
       part of any registration statement to which it relates.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,338,469
<SECURITIES>                                56,975,222
<RECEIVABLES>                                  440,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            58,754,392
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,754,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,132,057
<BONDS>                                     54,681,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,939,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,754,392
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,050,577
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               144,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,170,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,735,830
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,094,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,641,498
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,641,498
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated February 17, 2005, accompanying the December 31, 2004 and 2003 consolidatedfinancial statements included in the Annual Report of Unitil Corporation and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements ofUnitil Corporation and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-114978 effective April 29, 2004), Form S-3 (File No. 333-42264 effective July 26, 2000) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-42266 effective July 26, 2000.)

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON, LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 21, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,755
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,720,177)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,247
<SALES>                                        65,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (69,214)
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               826,397
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (895,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (857,913)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,753,524)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.10)
        


</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc lude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PE DRO J ES US- GO NZALEZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72977 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 925- 672 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e dr o J e s us - G onz a l e z , anat i ve and c i t i z e n of G uat e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr at i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c at i on f or 

# FI LED MA R 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72977 2 w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e te rm in atio n th at J e s u s - G o n z a le z is in e lig ib le f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e “p e r s e c u to r ’s b ar ” o f 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i ) be c aus e J e s us - G onz a l e z f a i l e d t o e xhaus tthi s i s s ue be f or e the B I A . Se e B a rro n v . A s h c ro ft , 35 8 F . 3d67 4, 67 7-78 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DI S MI S S E D.
From: Messinger, Lisa C.
To: Thomas Finseth Subject: A. B. Brown scrubber waters
Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:23:00 AM

Hi TJ – We spoke a couple days ago about the SIGECO / Vectren A. B. Brown scrubber sumps and tried to correlate information provided on the ICR water balance and comments I made to the ELG rulemaking. The plant has taken a further look at the water balance and has noted that evaporative
loss in the scrubber is NOT accounted for...it is noted on the WB as such. They are working on an updated WB with a more detailed description about the source of the waters that enter the scrubber area (fresh water or ash pond recirculated water), and the discharges from sumps, belt filter, etc. They anticipate having a revised water balance available next week which I will then forward for your review. Hopefully this will aid in better describing and understanding the wastewater flows from the unique scrubbers at A. B. Brown.

ThanksLisa C. Messinger Lisa C. Messinger Manager, Utility Environmental Compliance Vectren Corporation 812-491-4666



### This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of theindividual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is nonpublic, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. Thank you.