alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
261 La. 541

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. *John*WHITSELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52354.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 18, 1972.

In re: John Whitsell applying for remedial writ and writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied; the record before us does not warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction.
#### In the Matter of Hampton Sand Corp. et al., Respondents, v John P. Cahill, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, et al., Appellants.

[721 NYS2d 820]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated *548November 17, 1998, which denied the petitioners’ application for a permit to mine the subject property, the appeal, by permission, as limited by the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated August 17, 1999, as granted the petition to the extent of staying further administrative proceedings against the petitioners and precluding the appellants from enforcing the determination dated November 17, 1998, and denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, and the motion is denied as academic.

In a related appeal *(State of New York v Hampton Sand Corp.,*281 AD2d 536 [decided herewith]), we rejected the petitioners’ argument that they were granted a permit to mine the subject property by operation of law because the appellant New York State Department of Environmental Conservation failed to timely respond to their demand for a decision regarding their permit application. Accordingly, this petition, which is predicated upon the same claim, must be denied, and the proceeding dismissed. Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### SINGER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. DATA BUSINESS FORMS, INC. and Gerald A. Matacale, Appellees.

Nos. S-189, S-264.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 27, 1973.

Walter B. Dunagan, of Becks & Becks, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Donald E. Hawkins, of Hawkins & Hawkins, Daytona Beach, for appellees.

*421PER CURIAM.

Upon motion by appellant, this Court consolidated the appeal with the petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the order granting appellees’ motion to set aside a default and judgment entered pursuant thereto. Inasmuch as certiorari is not the proper remedy for review of such an order, Bland v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 47 (Fla.1970), the petition is denied and the appeal is considered as an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, 32 F.S.A., which expressly provides for appeals “from orders granting or denying motions to vacate defaults”.

Our examination of the record on appeal and consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties indicate that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the order herein challenged, and the same is accordingly affirmed. Appellant’s motion for attorney fees is denied.

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
# C_2013107EN.01000101.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6801 — Rosneft/TNK-BP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 107/01

On 8 March 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6801. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6801. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Petition for Exemption 333

Walter L. Pugh 108 Brookwood Drive Vicksburg Ms.39183
I , Walter Pugh , do hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

- 95 FEB. 14 2012, Section 333. I request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Phantom 3 Professional Aircraft, in order to provide services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial filming and photography for farmi ng operations, real estate, and special events to include but not limited to weddings, private or public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events. Background Information
I am the Director of Facilities for Ameristar Casino in Vicks burg, MS

. We are lo cated right on the Mississippi R iver

. I ha ve worked with this company for 22 years
. I was a member of the Warren County Volunteer Fire Department and a Nationa l Certified first responder for 8 years. I am Prior service military and a Gulf War Veteran. I have a small UAV that was registered on 12/29/2015 , Certificate Number FA3WMTPK77

. Aerial Operations Intention To be able to provide a service to our community and surrounding area with aerial photography, for search and rescue, video , fa rming real estate mapping and surveying. I plan to use the DJI Phantom 3 Professional UAV (Link for Manual attached ) the Phantom 3 is restricted to fly no more than 400 ft. Elevation

. The UAV will only be flow according to my registration guidelines and will not be flown near any airports. As in Grants of Exemptions Nos. 11062, 11112, and 12645 there is enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Please notify Walter L Pugh at leon.pugh@ameristar.com of your actions, and or approvals. Thank you, for your interest in this request. Sincerely, Walter L. Pugh

From which the exemption is requested: 14 CFR Part 21 subpart H 14 CFR 45.23 (b) 14 CFR 61.101 (e) (4), & (5) 14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b) 14 CFR 61.23 (a) & (c) 14 CFR 91.7 (a)14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2)

14 CFR 91.103 14 CFR 91.109 14 CFR 91.119 (c) 14 CFR 91.121 14 CFR 91.151 (a) 14 CFR 91.203 (a) 14 CFR 91.405 (a) 14 CFR 91.407 (a) 14 CFR 91.409 (a) 14 CFR 91.417 (a) Manual Link: 

### https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_M anual__V1.6.pdf
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51286

Summary Calendar

 

RENEE SHEREE O’CAROLAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TATE PURYEAR; TODD RIFFE; ROLAND CUNNINGHAM;

JOHN DOES 1-10; WILLIAM DON MANTAGUE, Individually,

and as Hays County Sheriff,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CV-41-SS

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

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Renee Sheree O’Carolan (O’Carolan) appeals the district

court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on her civil

rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Texas state

court. She argues that her petition was timely filed and served

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which she contends

should be applied in this case.
No. 02-51286

-2-

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to civil actions

removed to the United States district courts from the state courts

and govern procedure after removal.” FED. R. CIV. P. 81(c)

(emphasis added); see also Matter of Meyerland, 960 F.2d 512, 520

(5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (“A case removed from state court simply

comes into the federal system in the same condition in which it

left the state system.”). Accordingly, because O’Carolan’s case

originated in state court, and the events relevant to its

timeliness occurred prior to its removal, the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure do not govern the issue whether O’Carolan tolled

the applicable statute of limitations while her case was pending in

Texas state court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 81(c); Meyerland, 960 F.2d

at 520. Because O’Carolan’s claim is time barred in state court,

Hainsler v. Mainka, 807 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi

1991), it is also time barred here.

AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00323-CV

In re The Commitment of George Olivarez

On Appeal from the

148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022DCV-2249-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. No costs are assessed, as appellant 

filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 5, 2024
Exhibit 10.7


 


Amendment #1 to


OFF TAKE AGREEMENT


 


 


THIS Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the
Offtake Agreement (the “Agreement”) originally entered into on June 13, 2016 between NioCorp Developments LTD (“NioCorp”)
and CMC Cometals division of Commercial Metals Company (“CMC”), and subsequently, on Sept 1, 2017, assigned to and assumed
from CMC by Traxys Cometals USA, LLC., is entered into on April 13, 2020.




WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement wish to amend the terms of the Agreement as set out herein and in accordance with
the terms of Clause 18.4 of the Agreement;


 


WHEREAS,
Traxys North America LLC (“TNA”) is the successor by merger to Traxys Cometals USA LLC. By virtue of the merger, TNA assumed
all of Traxys Cometals USA LLC’s rights, title and interest and all obligations under the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned
parties do hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


The definition of the term “Territory”
in Clause 1.1 (“Definitions and Interpretation”) of the Agreement is hereby replaced with the following:


 


“Territory: North America
(with the exception of U.S. Steel), South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Commonwealth of Independent States
and Mainland China with the exception of the following excluded companies:


- Baosteel Group


- Shagang Group


- Shougang Group


- Taiyuan Iron &
Steel Group (TISCO for short)


- Huzhou Yongxing
Special Steel Import & Export Co., Ltd.


- Tianjin New Wei
San Industrial Co., Ltd. & Tianjin Da Shiang Precision Industrial Co., Ltd.


 


and any other country as the Parties
may agree from time to time in writing, where the parties intend the Buyer to have the exclusive right to sell the Product. Anything herein
contained to the contrary notwithstanding, any country, territory or area not specifically set forth above, is excluded from the Territory.
In addition, Thyssen Krupp Metallurgical Products GMBH and its parent, subsidiary and affiliate companies are specifically excluded from
the Territory, regardless of where in the world they may be located.”


 


Capitalized terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and provisions
of the Agreement not expressly modified hereby shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby expressly ratified and confirmed.


 


 


	Traxys North America LLC	NioCorp Developments, LTD
	By: /s/ John Kahn	By: /s/ John F. Ashburn Jr.
	Name: John Kahn	Name: John F. Ashburn Jr.
	Title: Global Product Manager	Title: VP & General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 of CFC International,  Inc.
and  subsidiaries  (the  "Company") for the quarter ended  September 30, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Dennis W. Lakomy, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and 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.


Date:  November 3, 2005         /s/                        Dennis W. Lakomy
                               --------------------------------------------
                                   Dennis W. Lakomy
                                   Executive Vice President
                                   and Chief Financial Officer

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided by CFC International,  Inc., and will be retained by CFC International,
Inc.  and  furnished to the  Securities  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ-SANTOS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30187 

D.C. No. 1:18-cr-02042-SMJ-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Rodriguez-Santos appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his jury-trial conviction and 144-month sentence for possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(B)(viii), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-30187 

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rodriguez-Santos’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there 

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 

Rodriguez-Santos has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has 

been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Contrary to Rodriguez-Santos’s argument in his pro se brief, counsel’s brief 

comports with the requirements of Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
#### Ex parte Fred O. HENDERSON et al.

SC 2779.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 30, 1977.

FAULKNER, Justice.

'WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139351-2

FURNESS GOLF CONSTR UCTION, INC., f/k/a CASTLE ROCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, and

TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant

v SC: 139351 COA: 279398 Manistee CC: 00-009766-CH RVP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

RVP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139352 COA: 279399 FURNESS GOLF CONSTRUC TION, INC., f/k/a Manistee CC: 00-009791-CK CASTLE ROCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, and

TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 11, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. Maxine ROMAIN and Anibal Casillas, Respondents.

No. 70-957.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

The undersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”)hereby certifies that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for theyear ended September 25, 2010 to which this certification is attached (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| *November 24,  2010* | * * | By:                                               | *s/Peter M. Folger* |
|---------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
| Date                      |     | Peter M. Folger                                   |
|                      |     | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed”for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference intoany filing, under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of1934.

 

----
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.79 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Wisconsin http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/01-Redistricting_File--PL_94-171/ http://factfinder2.census.gov The data will include summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts. According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.
  https://www.census.gov/rdo http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html Please visit http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ for an interactive map showcasing county-level population change from 1960 to 2010, as well as state-level data on race and Hispanic or Latino origin for 2010. The widget will be updated as states are released and can be embedded on your website. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.66 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Local 2010 Census Data for Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.
  http://factfinder2.census.gov For more information on the Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Program, visit <https://www.census.gov/rdo/>.
  https://www.census.gov http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html Twitter Facebook Flickr YouTube
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy