alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

PR ESER VATION OF LOS OLIVOS a n d PR ESER VATION OF SANTA YNEZ, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. UNITED STATES DEPAR TM ENT OF THE INTERIOR ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55486 D.C . No. 2:06-c v-01502-JVS-SH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 12, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, M c KEOW N, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de nie d pla intiffs’ re q

ue st to re ope n this c a se . Pla i ntiffs initially

c ha lle nge d

a 2006 de c ision of the Inte rior B oa rd of India

n 

# F IL ED
JAN 17 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pa ge 2 of 2

Appe a ls (IB IA). The distric t c ourt va c a te d tha t de c ision a

nd re m ande d the c a se to the IB IA, whic h issue d a

supe rse ding de c ision in 2014. Pla intiffs m ay

atte m pt to
c ha lle nge the IB IA’ s 2014 de c ision by filing a ne w a c tion in the distric t c ourt, but the y m ay not do so, a s the y have atte m pte d to do he re , by “ re ope ning” an e arlie r
a c tion tha t ha d a lre a dy

c o nc lude d. C ontra ry to pla intiffs’ c onte ntions, the ir initia l 2006 a c tion did not rem a in pe nding in the

distric t c ourt a fte r 2008. The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision of July 9, 2008, whic h gra

nte d in pa rt a nd de nie d in pa

rt pla intiffs’ m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, wa s a

fina l judgm e nt. Se e Fe d. R . C i v. P. 58(c )(2)(B ) (stating tha t a judgm e nt is e nte re d a fte r 150 da y s e ve n if no se pa

ra te doc um e nt is file d). The
c ourt’ s de c ision re solve d a ll of the c la im s ra ise d in pla intiffs’ m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd re m a nde d the c a se to the IB IA. A distric t c ourt ge ne ra lly doe s not
re ta in jurisdic tion a fte r an a c tion is re m ande d

to a n a ge nc y . Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 919, 921 n.2 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ). Additionally , pla intiffs tre a te d the de c ision a s a

fina l judgm e nt by se e king a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r the Equa l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t. Se e C

ase y v . Albe rtson’s Inc

. , 362 F.3d 1254, 1259 (9th C ir. 2004). AFFIRM E D.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KARL LEE BLAIR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-118

[October 4, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 15-6710 CF10A, 

15-11071 CF10A, 15-11258 CF10A, 15-12422 CF10A, 15-12549 CF10A, 

15-12957 CF10A, 15-14270 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### John Dixon GENTRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 15, 1986.

Michael H. Lambert, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paula C. Coffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dayto-na Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, John Dixon Gentry, was convicted and sentenced for two counts of burglary and three counts of grand theft. We affirm the convictions but reverse the departure sentences because no written reasons for departure were given by the trial court. *See State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for resentencing.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH and OR-FINGER, JJ., concur.
**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 for the three months period
      ended March 31, 2007 of the Claymore MACROshares Oil Up Tradeable Trust (the
      " **Registrant** "),
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      " **Quarterly**  **Report** "),
      I,
      Steven M. Hill, principal financial officer of MACRO Securities Depositor,
      LLC,
      which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the " **Depositor** "),
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
                Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                13(a) or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly represents,
                in all
                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                of the
                Registrant.











Date:
      May
      15, 2007





/s/
      Steven M. Hill


Steven
      M.
      Hill


On
      behalf
      of the Registrant


and
      as
      Chief Financial Officer
[No. 14449-6-III.

Division Three.

July 2, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Arturo Garcia Torres, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 94-1-50152-5, Craig Matheson, J., entered October 25, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Munson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Schul-theis, J.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The
undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of TG Venture Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), 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 his
knowledge:



(1) The Annual Report
of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: September
29, 2023



|/s/ Patrick Tsang                                                  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Patrick Tsang                                                      | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer) | 



The foregoing certification
is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50043 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARGARITO IBANEZ-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:07-CR-123-ALL
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Through counsel , Margarito Ibanez-Martinez appeals his jury trial conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for financial gain. IbanezMartinez, who has been a fugitive since the selection ofthejury, was tried and sentenced in absentia. The record reflects that the district court based its decision on the difficulty in resc heduling the trial; the burden on the Government and the Government’s key witness, who was under a hold by the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-80043

2 Department of Homeland Security; and the unlikelihood that Ibanez-Martinez would return or be captured in the near future. The Government contends that this court should dismiss IbanezMartinez’s appeal pursuant to the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine.” Counsel for Ibanez-Martinez does not address this issue. The “fugitivedisentitlement doctrine” isan equitabledoctrine that “limits a criminal defendant’s access tothejudicial system whose authority he evades.” Bagwell v. Dretke

, 376 F.3d 408, 410-13 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Ibanez-Martinez has not been returned to custody since he became a fugitive on September 24, 2007. Under the circumstances, dismissal of IbanezMartinez’sappeal isappropriate. It is unlikely that Ibanez-Martinez will return, under his own volition or otherwise, in the foreseeable future. Dismissal of this appeal is further supported by enforceability concerns, as any judgment on review may be impossible to enforce, and would serve an important deterrent function and “advance an interest in efficient, dignified appellate practice.” Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 240-42 (1993); seeBagwell , 376 F.3d at 410-13. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of MuellerWater Products, Inc. (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

I, Jeffery W.Sprick, the Chief Financial Officer of Mueller Water Products, Inc.,certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Mueller Water Products, Inc.

| Date: February 3, 2006 | By:    | /s/ JEFFERY W.  SPRICK  |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                        |   | Jeffery W. Sprick       |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Director Compensation Arrangements



  
 Exhibit 10.20

  
 Director Compensation Arrangements 
  
 Each of Verity’s non-employee directors receives a quarterly retainer of
$6,250 and a per meeting fee of $2,500 for in-person meetings and $1,250 for telephonic meetings (up to a maximum of $5,000 per quarter). Committee members receive $2,000 for each committee meeting attended (up to a maximum of $4,000 per quarter).
Chairpersons of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receive $1,500 per quarter for serving in such capacities. The members of the Board are also eligible for reimbursement for their
expenses incurred in attending Board meetings in accordance with Verity’s policy. 
  
 Each of Verity’s non-employee directors also receives stock option grants. Under current practice, each person who is first elected or appointed as a non-employee director (excluding any person who is already a
director at the time of first becoming a non-employee director) is granted an option to purchase 40,000 shares of Verity’s common stock on the date of such election or appointment. In addition, all directors who have served on the Board for
more than six months and are not members of management receive a stock option to purchase 40,000 shares of Verity’s common stock on the date of each annual stockholders meeting. The exercise price of each option is the fair market value of
Verity’s common stock on the day of grant (based on the closing sales price reported on the Nasdaq National Market for the date of grant). Each such option vests over four years and generally must be exercised within ten years. In the event of
a merger of Verity with or into another corporation or a consolidation, acquisition of assets or other change-in-control transaction involving Verity, the vesting of each option will accelerate and the option will terminate if not exercised prior to
the consummation of the transaction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000848101
<NAME>                        Vision Ten, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         7,479
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  174,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (153,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    117,712
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,844
<PP&E>                                         53,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (53,031)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          261,675
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       153,310
<OTHER-SE>                                     (917,141)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (764,831)
<SALES>                                        97,694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               97,694
<CGS>                                          204,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  204,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               37,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (143,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (143,779)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SHERROD RICE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 361 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
1 Hunt, Jeff

From: Michael J. Germer [MJGERMER@up.com]

Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:14 AM

To: sclo461@ECY.WA.gov

Cc: laschmid@up.com

Subject: UPRR Washington Est Fuel Consumption 2008

Attachments: pic02971.gif; UPRR Washington Est Fuel C onsumption 2008.pdf; EPA Locomotive Emission

Factors Rev 2009.pdf; EPA Locomotive Emission Factors 1997.pdf

Ms. Clouse: Per your attached request, attached pl ease find estimated Union Pacific fuel consumption

for operations in the State of Washington for calendar year 2008.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS IS CONSID ERED UPRR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

INFORMATION, AND SHOULD BE HANDLED AS SUCH.

For your reference, I have includ ed U.S. EPA guidance documents th at provide the emissions factors

used in the calculations.

I trust this will meet your needs - if you have questions, please contact me at your convenience.

Best Regards,

Jon Germer

(See attached file: UPRR Washington Est Fuel C onsumption 2008.pdf)(See attached file: EPA Locomotive

Emission Factors Rev 2009.pdf)(See attached file: EPA Locomotive Emission Factors 1997.pdf)

M. J. (Jon) Germer | Manager Environmental Affairs

________________________________________________ Union Pacific Railroad Company | www.up.com 1400 Douglas Street STOP 1030 | Omaha Nebraska 68179

TEL 402.544.2235 | FAX 402.233.3004 | CELL 402.214.3861

mailto: mjgermer@up.com

"Clouse, Sarah (ECY)" < sclo461@ECY.WA.GOV >

"Clouse, Sarah (ECY)"

< sclo461@ECY.WA.GOV >

09/20/2010 05:00 PM To < mjgermer@up.com >

cc

Subjec t UP Locomotive information

Dear Mr. Germer,

As you may already know, states are in the process of preparing 2008 air

emissions inventories for federal reporting. The federal rule requires we report

air emissions estimates by county and source. We also use the information for air

quality modeling in the Pacific Northwest

‐ most notably to make daily air

quality forecasts. For this, we allocate total county rail emissions2 (UP+BNSF+Amtrack) evenly to the county railroad network (network from GIS

dataset).

The data below is needed for the year 2008, for Washington State:

County

Track Segment Description

Annual Average GT

Miles of Track

Annual GTM

Fuel Use (gal)

– Road (line haul)

# of Switch Locomotives

Fuel use (gal)

‐ Switch

If possible, I would like to get the information by mid

‐ October. If you could

provide this data in Excel format, it would be nice. If not, pdf is OK. Our

deadline for reporting is November 1, 2010. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,



## Sarah Clouse

Dept. of Ecology

Air Quality Program

(360) 407-6832

sarah.clouse@ecy.wa.gov

3 Please consider the environmen t before printing this e-mail

**

This message and any attachments contain information from Union Pacific which ma y be confidential and/or

privileged. If you are not the intended reci pient, be aware that any disclosure , copying, distribution or use of the

contents of this message is strictly prohibited by law. If you receive this message in error, please contact the

sender immediately and delete th e message and any attachments.

**
#### Lewis HICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-1116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 1, 1989.

*1313James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Barbara L. Condon, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Dee R. Ball, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

After the defendant was convicted of a new substantive offense committed while on probation for earlier offenses, his recommended guidelines sentence was 31⁄2 to 4V2 years’ incarceration. The trial court imposed a sentence of 43⁄41⁄8 years on the new offense, but ordered appellant to he incarcerated for 5 years and 13 months on each of the prior offenses of aggravated battery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, concurrent. Defendant is correct that those latter sentences are departures, with no reasons advanced. The trial court could have bumped the sentences one cell upward for violation of probation,1 but the recommended sentence would then be 4V2 — 5V2 years. The sentences totalling six years and one month exceeded that maximum and constituted an improper departure. We vacate the sentences imposed after revocation of probation (CR 86-3502 and CR 86-4265) and remand the cause for resentencing as to those crimes.

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

1

. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)14 provides:

> Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the guidelines. The sentence imposed after revocation of probation or community control may be included within the original cell (guidelines range) or may be increased the next higher cell (guidelines range) without requiring a reason for departure.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

RANDY ANDERSON, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

RUTH ANDERSON, N/K/A RUTH 

ARROYO, 

Res • ondent. 

No. 83574 

FILED 

OCT 2 8 2021 

ELIZABEM A BROWN 

CLERK OF ByPREME COURT 

BY 5. 

DEPUTY CLERI 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This appeal was docketed on October 6, 2021, without payment 

of the requisite filing fee. See NRAP 3(e). That same day, this court issued 

a notice directing appellant to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate 

compliance with NRAP 24 within 10 days. The notice advised that failure 

to comply would result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant 

has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to this court's notice. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 3(a)(2). 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

BY: 

cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge 

Randy Anderson 

Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

ith-1,147 46414..
**Allion
Healthcare, Inc. and Subsidiaries**
 
 Allion
Healthcare, Inc. a Delaware Corporation 1660 Walt
Whitman Road Suite 105, Melville, NY 11747
 
 Moms
Pharmacy, Inc., a California corporation
 2330 West
205 th Street,
Torrance, CA 90501
 
 Medicine
Made Easy, a California corporation
 2330 West
205 th Street,
Torrance, CA 90501
 
 Mail
Order Meds, Inc., a Texas corporation
 2800
South IH 35, Suite 108, Austin, TX 78704
 
 Moms
Pharmacy, Inc., a New York Corporation
 1660 Walt
Whitman Road, Suite 105, Melville, NY 11747
 
 Moms
Pharmacy, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (d ba MOMS
Specialty Care Pharmacy)
 4500
Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33137
[No. 36625-4-I.

Division One.

August 26, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Judith Diane Williams, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-00848-4, Steven G. Scott, J., entered May 9, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Webster, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Grosse, J.
2012 authorization from Decision XXII/6 (1) U.S. authorization from Decision XXII/6 1,022,826 4.0%1,022,826 4.0% (2) - Maximum allowable new production/import 922,826 3.6% 922,826 3.6% (3) = Minimum allowable CSA 100,000 0.4% 100,000 0.4%

Calculate supply chain factor U.S. authorization (1) 1,022,826 4.0%1,022,826 4.0% (4) - Reduction for uptake of alternatives 0 0.0% 0 0.0% (5) = One year's CUE need 1,022,826 4.0%1,022,826 4.0% x Percentage of year's production to recover 42% 42% (6) = SCF to meet that need 429,000 1.7% 429,000 1.7%

Calculate stocks (= CSA) (7) Existing pre-phaseout inv on 1/1/11 ("ES") 1,802,715 1,248,876 (8) - 2011 CSA Use ("D") 337,633 (9) - 2011 Group II Use 773,000 3.0% 0.0% - SCF (6) 429,000 1.7% 429,000 1.7% (10)= stocks =CSA 263,082 1.0% 819,876 3.2%

Calculate carryover (11) Reported as produced/imported in 2010 1,955,000 1,955,000 (12) - Reported as sold in 2010 1,955,000 1,955,000 (13) = Unsold carryover 0 0

Calculate new production (=CUA) Total U.S. authorization (1) 1,022,826 4.0%1,022,826 4.0% - CSA (10) 263,082 1.0% 819,876 3.2% - Carryover (13) 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
- Research 0 0.0% 0 0.0% - uptake of alternatives 0 0.0% 0 0.0% (14)= New production 759,744 3.0%202,950 0.8%

Calculate total amount allocated CUA (14) 759,744 3.0% 202,950 0.8% + CSA (3) 263,082 1.0% 819,876 3.2%
= Total 1,022,826 4.0%1,022,826 4.0% Proposed Rule Framework with New Data 

## Calculations for 2012 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption