alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## UNITED STATES ENVIRO NMENTAL PROTECTION A GENCY

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT WESTERN ECOLOGY DIVI SION 200 S.W. 35TH STREET , CORVALLIS, OR 9733 3

September 10, 2014

« Address_1 » « Address_2 »
« City_ » , « State_ » « Zip »

« GreetingLine »

I am writing to ask you for your help in understanding how residents of Oregon feel about the importance of protecting salmon and steelhead fish populations in the Willamette basin. The best way we have of learning about these issues is by asking all different kinds of people who live in Oregon to share their thoughts and opinions. Your address is one of only a small number that have been randomly selected to help in this study.

To make sure we hear fro m all different types of p eople who live in Oregon, your participation and opinions are essential for ensuring that the public's voice is taken into account. We cannot send the questionnaire to everyone, so your answers will represent the opinions of othe r Oregon residents who are similar to you and your household. We ask that you or someone in your household who is at least 18 years of age please fill out and return the questionnaire

.
This questionnaire

, Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: What do YOU think should be done ?, will help policy makers better understand your opinions about programs that would help to restore salmon and steelhead fish populations in the Willamette basin. The questions should take about 20

– 30 minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. Your answers will never be associated with your mailing address. We ask that you or someone in your household who is at least 18 years of age please fill out and return the questionnaire

. If you have any questi ons about this questionnaire , please contact Michael Papenfus, the stu dy director, by telephone at 1

- 800

- 754

- xxxx or by email at papenfus.michael@epa.gov

. Your address was randomly selected to receive a questionnaire as part of a statewide sample of Oregon households. Sometime in the next few weeks you will receive the questionnaire booklet by mail. Your participation is compl etely voluntary and your answers will be kept entirely confidential.

Even if you are not familiar with salmon and steelhead populations in the Willamette basin, by taking a few minutes to share your thoughts and opinions on this topic, you will be helpin g us out a great deal.

Please keep in mind that by quickly returning your completed questionnaire you will be helping to keep down the costs of collecting this information.

I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and look forward to receiving your re sponse.
Many thanks

,

Dr. Michael Papenfus

United States Environmental Protection Agency
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1463

THOMAS WANE MARETT, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Court No. 06-

4048) 

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Wane Marett, Appellant Pro Se. John DiCicco, Richard 

Farber, Andrew Weiner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C.; Clarissa C. Potter, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Thomas Wane Marett appeals from the tax court’s orders 

imposing sanctions, upholding the Commissioner’s proposed 

collection activities with respect to his tax liability for the 

2000 tax year, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. 

See Marett v. Comm’r, IRS, Tax Ct. No. 06-4048 (U.S.T.C. Jan 22, 

2009; entered Feb. 25 & filed Feb. 26, 2009). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Januar y 4, 2019

No. 04

- 17

- 00811

- CV

Richard O. WEED , Timothy A. Weed, and Rees R. Oliver, III

, Appellants

v.

FROST BANK , Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Rees R. Oliver, Jr.

Deceased,

Appellees

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar Co unty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- PC

- 2024A

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice 1

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins and the Law Office of Beth Watkins d/b/a Watkins Law d/b/a Watkins

Appeals PLLC has filed an Agreed Motion to Substitute Counsel , seeking to withdraw from

representation of appellants and to substitute Shannon K. Dunn and the Law Office of Shannon

Dunn, PLLC as lead counsel for appellants. The Agreed Motion to Substitute Counsel is

GRANTED.

It is ORDE RED that Shannon K. Dunn and the Law Office of Shannon Dunn, PLLC are

substituted as lead counsel for Appellants Richard O. Weed, Timothy A. Weed , and Rees R.

Oliver, III. It is further ORDERED that Beth Watkins and the L aw Office of Beth Watkins d/b/a

Wat kins Law d/b/a Watkins Appeals PLLC are withdrawn from representing appellants.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to remove the following e

- mail addresses from the e

service circulation list in this cause:

Beth@WatkinsAppeals.com

Beth.Watkins@Wa tkinsAppeals.com

, and

1 Not parti ci patingStephanie@WatkinsAppeals.com

.

The Clerk of this Court is further directed to add to the e

- service circulation list in this

cause the following email address : Shannon@ShannonDunnLaw.com

.

It is so ORDERED on January 4 , 2019.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-18-00476-CV

________________

JAMES BRUYN, Appellant

V.

KEVIN SWEARINGEN, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 136th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-201,991

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Bruyn filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion 

includes a certificate of conference signed by counsel for Swearingen. According to 

the motion, the parties have agreed to allow Swearingen a thirty-day extension to 

cure the deficiency in his expert’s report, and in return, Bruyn would dismiss the 

appeal. No opinion has issued in this appeal. We grant Bruyn’s motion to dismiss

and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.
2

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ 

 CHARLES KREGER

 Justice 

Submitted on January 30, 2019

Opinion Delivered January 31, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2597

_____________________________

SILAS KENDRICKS,

Appellant,

v.

JUDGE CHARLES W. ARNOLD, for 

the Fourth Judicial Circuit and 

the STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

August 17, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Silas Kendricks, pro se, Appellant.

Julie K. Taylor, General Counsel, Fourth Judicial Circuit, 

Jacksonville, for Appellee Judge Charles W. Arnold; Pamela Jo 

Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee State of Florida.
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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Heather Marie Ryan has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in this appeal. 

We previously abated this appeal for a determination by the trial court as to 

whether Ryan desired to continue this appeal because Ryan had not filed a brief despite 

being directed to do so by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). The trial court 

conducted a hearing on September 2, 2021, and the record makes clear that Ryan wishes 

to dismiss this appeal. We reinstate this case and grant Ryan’s motion to dismiss. The 

appeal is dismissed.
Ex Parte Heather Marie Ryan Page 2

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 15, 2021

Do not publish

[CR25]
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00413

- CR

W ILLIAM R OGER M C G LOTHLIN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1269183D )

May 13, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgme n t. The trial court ’ s judgment is modified to delete

$175 from the reparations so that Appellant William Roger McGlo thlin is obligated t o

pay only $275 in reparations

. It is ordered that the trial court ’ s judgment is affirmed as

modified.

SECOND DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 3984-004]

                    1. By letter filed February 7, 2012, Algonquin Power Company informed the Commission that its exemption from licensing for the South Milton Project No. 3984, originally issued January 30, 1981,[1]                                          has been transferred to Abenaki Timber Corporation. The project is located on the South Milton River in Stafford County, New Hampshire. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.                

2. Abenaki Timber Corporation, located at 16 Church Street, Kingston, New Hampshire 03848 is now the exemptee of the South Milton Project No. 3984.

Dated: February 16, 2012.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 FERC ¶ 62,423, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less and Denying Competing Application for Preliminary Permit.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-4411 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 1845

- 18T3

ZEENA PAUL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BIJOY K. PAUL,

Defendant

- Respondent.

_________________________

Submitted November 18, 2019

– Decided

Before Judges Rothstadt and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County,

Docket No. FM

- 13

- 0890

- 12.

The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LL C , attorneys for

appellant (Rajeh A. Saadeh and Stilianos M ichael

Cambilis, on th e brief s ).

Law Office of Edward Fradki n, LLC, attorneys for

respondent (Edward P eter Fradkin, of counsel and on

the brief ).

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.

December 3, 20192 A

- 1845

- 18T3

The matter having been amicably adjusted and the parties having stipulated to the

dismissal of this appeal, it is h ereby ordered that the appeal is dismissed with prejudice

and without costs.

Dismissed.
| **Exhibit 24.1**      |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
| **POWER OF ATTORNEY** |

 

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Lionel Reilly or Neal Soderquist, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD. for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006, and any such amendment thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to file any such amendment to the Form 10-K, exhibits thereto and documents required in connection therewith with the SEC, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.  

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of October, 2006.

 
| /s/ Buddy D. Ray DVM |
|----------------------|
| Buddy D. Ray         |

 
| STATE OF KENTUCKY | ) |   |
|-------------------|---|--------|
|              | ) | ss.    |
| COUNTY OF GRAVES  | ) |   |

 

On this 23rd day of October, 2006, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came Buddy D. Ray, known to me to be the identical person who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.

 
| /s/ Lisa Clapp         |
|------------------------|
| Notary Public          |
| My commission expires: |

 
| 2-17-08 |
|---------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0044 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. ROBERT DUNKERSON, Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 23 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 18 2024

07/18/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0044
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1754

WALLACE WAYNE BRADSHER, JR.; PAMELA FOGLEMAN BRADSHER,

Petitioners – Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.

(Tax Ct. No. 10S-6772)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Wayne Bradsher, Jr., Pamela Fogleman Bradsher, 

Appellants Pro Se. John DiCicco, Richard Farber, John A. Nolet, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William 

J. Wilkins, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Johnny 

Craig Young, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wallace Wayne Bradsher, Jr., and Pamela Fogleman 

Bradsher appeal from the tax court’s order dismissing, as 

untimely filed, their petition for redetermination of the 

deficiency in their 2005 income taxes. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the tax court. See Bradsher v. Comm’r, 

Internal Rev., Tax Ct. No. 10S-6772 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 18, 2010). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 2, 2020.

________________

Nos. 3D20-1261 & 3D20-1276

Lower Tribunal No. 16-9652

________________

Frank Jerome Evans,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

Appeals under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the 

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, and Alberto Milian, 

Judges.

Frank Jerome Evans, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. 

MILLER, J.

UPON CONFESSION OF ERROR
2

After his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery became final, 

appellant, Frank Jerome Evans, filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging a 

myriad of claims, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Evans v. 

State, 255 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. While the motion 

remained pending, Evans timely sought to amend, asserting two new claims. See

Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e) (“A motion may . . . be amended at any time prior to either 

the entry of an order disposing of the motion or the entry of an order pursuant to 

subdivision (f)(5) or directing that an answer to the motion be filed pursuant to (f)(6), 

whichever occurs first.”). Citing facial insufficiency, the court denied the original 

motion, along with the motion for leave to amend and a subsequent motion for 

rehearing, by way of separate orders.

Upon the State’s proper and commendable confession of error, along with our 

own independent review of the record, we discern error in the failure below to adhere 

to “the procedure outlined in Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) when 

determining that an initial motion for post-conviction relief is legally insufficient.” 

Juarez v. State, 215 So. 3d 89, 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Under Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2), “[i]f the motion is insufficient on its face, and the 

motion is timely filed under this rule, the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable 

order allowing the defendant [sixty] days to amend the motion.”
3

Here, the summary denial of relief, without granting leave to amend, 

constituted an abuse of discretion. See Spera, 971 So. 2d at 761 (“[W]hen a 

defendant’s initial rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief is determined to be 

legally insufficient for failure to meet either the rule’s or other pleading 

requirements, the trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to allow the defendant 

at least one opportunity to amend the motion.”). Accordingly, we reverse and 

remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.79 MB)

Tags:Lt. Gen. Aundre Piggee, Army/DLA Day

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAX LOUMENA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

EVALINA BARTH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 15-17130 

D.C. No. 5:14-cv-05423-LHK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Max Loumena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 

motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem and subsequent dismissal of his civil 

rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss this 

appeal as moot.

 

* 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

APR 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-17130 

Approximately one month after Loumena filed this appeal, he turned 18 

years of age and was no longer required to secure the appointment of a guardian ad 

litem in order to pursue his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1) (the capacity of an 

individual to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the individual’s domicile);

Cal. Civ. P. Code § 372(a) (a minor must be represented in court proceedings by a 

guardian ad litem or guardian or conservator of an estate (emphasis added)). 

Accordingly, this appeal is moot because this court cannot grant effective relief 

regarding the district court’s denial of Loumena’s motion to appoint a guardian ad 

litem and the resulting dismissal of the action. See United States v. Tanoue, 94 

F.3d 1342, 1344 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n appeal must be dismissed as moot if an 

event occurs while the appeal is pending that makes it impossible for the appellate 

court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Loumena’s request for a transfer to the Central District of California, raised

for the first time in his opening brief, is denied.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Loumena’s arguments 

regarding the merits of his claim.

DISMISSED.