alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUM BER 13-0 7-00 685- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ DA N UZZE LL , T RU ST EE, A pp ellan t,
v . JASP ER T . R OE , I R R EV OC A B L E T R U ST , A p p el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 4 04t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Yañ ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam The appel lan t' s b ri ef in t he above c ause was due on Ma rc h 12, 2008. O n J une 3, 2008, the C ler k o f the C our t not ified appel lan t that the bri ef had not been ti mely fil ed and th a t th e a p p eal was subj ectto dis mis sal for want o f pros ecut ion under Texas Rul e of App ellate P ro c e d u re 38.8 (a)(1), unless w ithin te n da ys f rom th e da te of receipt of

this2

lette r, appe llant reaso nab ly ex plaine d the failu re and the ap pellee was no t sig nif icantly inj ured by

the appel lan t' s failu re to ti mely fil e a b ri ef. To date , app ell ant h as nei ther fil ed his brief in this mat ter nor oth erw ise respon ded to the Court’s notice s. Appel lan t hasfail ed toei ther re a so n a bly ex pla in hisfail ure to file a br ief, fil e a mo tion for extension o f time to f ile his brief , or f il e h is brief . Accordingly , the app eal is DI SM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF PR OSEC UTIO N. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8.8( a) , 42. 3( b)

. PERC UR IAM
Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and fil ed th isthe 21stday of Aug ust , 200 8.
#### State v. Clute

24456

04/29/2003

Affirmed
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT






|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
    annual period ended January 29, 2005 (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.                                                                        





| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Michael O. Moore                 
| |                                      
| | Michael O. Moore                     
| | Executive Vice President             
| | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

55
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

210) IV-C-177 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:02 AM Sheet 210 of 232 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A-Vl-W 

AUG 2 2 1991 

The Honorable Michael R. McNulty "«ft •, 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. McNulty: 

This is in response to your letter of JU1^U1J6',*-199T 

requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

address comments from Richard Warrender, President of the New 

York Association of Convenience Stores, concerning onboard 

refueling vapor recovery systems. We welcome the opportunity to 

do so. 

Mr. Warrender's letter expressed concern regarding EPA's . 

compliance to the mandate under the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments to issue regulations requiring onboard vapor recovery 

controls. As he pointed out in his letter, the Amendments 

require EPA to consult with the Secretary of Transportation 

regarding safety before issuing regulations requiring onboard 

controls. This consultation is well underway. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), recently 

released an updated study of onboard safety. EPA is currently 

preparing to publish a Federal Register notice announcing the 

availability of the NHTSA study and scheduling a public hearing 

to receive comments. A written comment period will also be 

announced. We will make the final determination on how to 

proceed with the rule based on DOT'S conclusions regarding the 

safety risks of onboard systems and on the record developed 

during the comment period. 

Again, EPA appreciates the opportunity to respond to these 

comments. They will be included in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Please feel free to contact me if you require any 

additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGfcr-w ui 

DONALD E. ZINGER 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

SDSB:Passavant:Harook:2565 Plymouth Rd.:X-295:8/12/91:ID# 9754W 

Last Reviewed By Charles Gray: 8/12/91 Control No. AL 913086 

Reviewed by DZinger:BR:X27647:AR-455:8-13-91: Wang No. 2391T 

CONCURRBMCSS 

SYMOOL 

SURNAME 

OATE 

> 

H yw*; 

<*••*•• • • • >•••.••••••••«««••• «•-•*«•••••••••••<• • ••••••••••.<•••** • • •«•_-!•••••••••••• • 

E P A Form 1320-1 A (1/90 ) Printed CM Recycled Paper OFFICIAL FILE COPY
##### 



EXHIBIT 12
 DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(In thousands, except for ratio data)
 ThreeQuarters
    
    
    Quarter
    
    
    Fiscal YearsFiscal Years Ended
    
    
    Ended
    
    
    Ended
    
    
    EndedDecember 30,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    January 1,
    
    
    January 3,
    
    
    March 22,
    
    
    December 28,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income tax expense,
minority interest expense, equity
earnings and cumulative effect of change
in accounting principle
    
    $
    (66,680
    )
    
    $
    82,835
    
    
    $
    159,673
    
    
    $
    26,619
    
    
    $
    72,001
    
    
    $
    206,659Distributed income of equity method
investees
    
    
    1,478
    
    
    
    2,040
    
    
    
    2,173
    
    
    
    2,606
    
    
    
    648
    
    
    
    3,166Fixed charges from continuing operations
    
    
    225,728
    
    
    
    185,800
    
    
    
    186,296
    
    
    
    149,648
    
    
    
    27,122
    
    
    
    117,154Earnings available for fixed charges
    
    $
    160,526
    
    
    $
    270,675
    
    
    $
    348,142
    
    
    $
    178,873
    
    
    $
    99,771
    
    
    $
    326,979Fixed charges from continuing operations:Interest expense
    
    $
    169,719
    
    
    $
    134,926
    
    
    $
    142,998
    
    
    $
    116,921
    
    
    $
    19,246
    
    
    $
    79,000Amortization of debt expense and
discounts
    
    
    4,996
    
    
    
    7,526
    
    
    
    9,505
    
    
    
    7,435
    
    
    
    374
    
    
    
    1,721Assumed interest element included in
rent expense
    
    
    51,013
    
    
    
    43,348
    
    
    
    33,793
    
    
    
    25,292
    
    
    
    7,502
    
    
    
    36,433Total fixed charges from continuing
operations
    
    $
    225,728
    
    
    $
    185,800
    
    
    $
    186,296
    
    
    $
    149,648
    
    
    $
    27,122
    
    
    $
    117,154Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (A)
    
    
    0.71
    X
    
    
    1.46
    X
    
    
    1.87
    X
    
    
    1.20
    X
    
    
    3.68
    X
    
    
    2.79
    X
#### Rita v. AON Risk Services, Inc. of Hawai’i

25134

04/17/2003

Affirmed
9/16/2014 How do batteries work?

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/power/2-how-do-batteries-work.html 1/2

Power System

What are possible power sources for satellites?

How do batteries work?

Electricity, as you probably already know, is the flow of electrons through a conductive path like a wire.

This path is called a circuit.

Batteries have three parts, an anode (-), a cathode (+), and the electrolyte. The cathode and anode (the

positive and negative sides at either end of a traditional battery) are hooked up to an electrical circuit.

The chemical reactions in the battery causes a build up of electrons at the anode. This results in an

electrical difference between the anode and the cathode. You can think of this difference as an unstable

build-up of the electrons. The electrons wants to rearrange themselves to get rid of this difference. But

they do this in a certain way. Electrons repel each other and try to go to a place with fewer electrons.

In a battery, the only place to go is to the cathode. But, the electrolyte keeps the electrons from going

straight from the anode to the cathode within the battery. When the circuit is closed (a wire connects the

cathode and the anode) the electrons will be able to get to the cathode. In the picture above, the electrons

go through the wire, lighting the light bulb along the way. This is one way of describing how electrical

potential causes electrons to flow through the circuit.

However, these electrochemical processes change the chemicals in anode and cathode to make them stop

supplying electrons. So there is a limited amount of power available in a battery.

When you recharge a battery, you change the direction of the flow of electrons using another power

source, such as solar panels. The electrochemical processes happen in reverse, and the anode and cathode

are restored to their original state and can again provide full power.
9/16/2014 How do batteries work?

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/power/2-how-do-batteries-work.html 2/2

What is are batteries?

What is energy?

What's a circuit?

What's an electron?

What's electron flow?

What DS1's battery life?

What does electrically charged mean?

How are atoms charged?

Where does energy come from and go?
Download Page G.17 - Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization for Dec 16, 2013

Series Description Oil and gas extraction (NAICS = 211); n.s.a. CAPUTL

Unit: Percentage

Multiplier: 1

Currency: NA

Unique Identifier: G17/CAPUTL/CAPUTL.G211.A

Time Period CAPUTL.G211.A

2000 94.5585

2001 94.3683

2002 92.8499

2003 92.064

2004 90.8176

2005 89.6538

2006 91.1667

2007 92.8933

2008 92.6725

2009 94.782

2010 94.7431

2011 95.4208

2012 97.7914
FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION



FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Suite 600

595 Hornby Street

Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 1A4

 

April 30, 2002

ROBERT GRACE

Dear Robert:

Re:Fairchild International Corporation (the "Corporation") - Stock Option Agreement

This letter will serve to confirm that, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it has been agreed to amend the incentive stock option agreement (the "Stock Option Agreement") entered into between yourself and the Corporation dated effective September 7, 2001 respecting the issuance to you of stock options (the "Options") to purchase up to an aggregate of 100,000 common shares in the capital stock of the Corporation at an exercise price of $0.25 per share exercisable until September 7, 2004.

Pursuant to section 6 of the terms and conditions attached to and forming part of the Stock Option Agreement, , the Stock Option Agreement shall be and is hereby amended to provide that the exercise price of the Options will be $0.06 per share.

The Stock Option Agreement, as amended hereby, shall continue in full force and effect.

Yours truly,

FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Per: /s/ Robert Grace

Robert Grace,

President

 

I, ROBERT GRACE, hereby consent to and agree with the foregoing, this 1st day of May, 2002.

/s/ Robert Grace

_________________________________________

ROBERT GRACE
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

34.   Declaration on Article 179 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Declaration on Article 179 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference agrees that the Union's action in the area of research and technological development will pay due respect to the fundamental orientations and choices of the research policies of the Member States.

---
Here, even if other parties rendered York Risk Services unable to comply 

with the hearing officer's decision within 30 days, the appeals officer 

concluded that York Risk Services had all the documentation necessary for 

payment by March 13, 2009, yet declined payment at that time and did 

not make the payment until February 2011. This finding is supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. See Law Offices of Barry Levinson v. 

Milko, 124 Nev. 355, 362, 184 P.3d 378, 383-84 (2008) (explaining that this 

court applies the same standard in reviewing an agency decision as the 

district court, and thus looks for clear error or an arbitrary and capricious 

abuse of discretion); see also NRS 233B.135(3) (providing the standards for 

judicial review of an agency decision). Given this evidence, the appeals 

officer did not abuse her discretion in finding unreasonable delay, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

ecks, J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Nancy L Allf, District Judge 

Salvatore C. Gugino, Settlement Judge 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

Dep't. of Business and Industry/Div. of Industrial 

Relations/Henderson 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

P) 1947A ce,
# Minnesota_county_differentials_
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 12, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 1354 Lower Tribunal No. 18

- 20074

- CC

________________ 

### Oracle Elevator Company , Appellant,

vs. 

### Omni at Coral Way, Inc., etc. , Appellee.

An Appeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Maria D. Ortiz , Judge. Sheldon R. Rosenthal , for appellant.
AD R Miami, LLC, and Juan Ramirez, Jr. , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON , JJ. FERNANDEZ, C.J.2 Appellant Oracle Elevator Company (“Oracle”) appeals the trial court’s order granting Omni at Coral Way’s (“Omni”) motion for summary judgment. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact , summary judgment is inappropriate. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings.

“ We review the trial court's orders granting final summary judgment de

novo

. ” Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. , 225 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

. This is a breach of contract action brought by Oracle against Omni. The parties provided copies of the same alleged contract to the trial court, one signed and one unsigned. T here is a genuine issue of material fact on the basic question of whether the parties had a signed agreem ent . This is a question for the trier of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. See Fla

. R

. Civ

. P

. 1.5 1 0 ; United Servs

. Auto. Ass'n v. Velez , 305 S o. 3d 682, 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)

. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the order on appeal for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 27, 2021

NO. 03-20-00154-CV

Susan Sissom, Appellant

v.

Equity Trust Company FBO 200186851 IRA, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on February 19, 2020. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Exhibit 23


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 No.  333-20169)  pertaining to the Cal-Maine Foods,  Inc. 1993 Stock
Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-39940)  pertaining to the Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
1999 Stock Option Plan, and in the  Post-Effective  Amendment No.1 to Form S-1
on Form S-3 (No.  333-14809)  and  related  Prospectus  pertaining  to  shares
underlying  common stock purchase  warrants of Cal-Maine  Foods,  Inc., of our
report  dated  July 14,  2000,  with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial
statements  and  schedule of  Cal-Maine  Foods,  Inc.  included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 3, 2000.


                                                        /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Jackson, Mississippi
August 16, 2000
COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS — CITY OF NEW YORK —APPELLATE TERM —SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. '

December 12, 1922.

#### THE PEOPLE v. JOHN WORTH, LESTER EMMETT AND ROBERT EMMETT.

Disorderly conduct — Nude bathing.

Defendants were charged with disrobing on an open beach. The evidence was that they took off their clothes in a secluded spot and went in swimming in trunks or bathing suits from private property — remote from the highway or the nearest house. *JSeld,*that this was not disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace.

Before Hon. John J. Freschi, Justice Presiding; Hon. James J. McInerney, and Hon. Clarence Edwards, Associate Justices.

*Lester*Emmett, for appellants.

*Dana*Wallace, *District Attorney (Joseph*Lonardo, of counsel), for respondents.

Appeal from judgment rendered August 17, 1922, in the Fourth District City Magistrate’s Court of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, adjudging the defendants guilty of disorderly conduct, tending to a breach of the peace, and imposing a fine of ten dollars each.

Per Curiam:

The complaint in this case substantially charges the defendants with the offense of disrobing on an open beach. It appears from all the evidence in the case that what the defendants actually did was to take off their clothes in a secluded spot and *203to go in swimming in trunks or bathing suits, in a place which was private property and remote from any public highway and a considerable distance from the nearest dwelling, being a farm house, in the neighborhood.

We do not think that the evidence returned establishes the facts charged in the complaint or any disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace by the defendants.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the facts, complaint dismissed, defendants discharged and the fines paid by the several appellants ordered to be returned to them respectively. (All concur.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,361
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  431,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,286
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               459,304
<PP&E>                                       2,319,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                 614,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,731,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          510,019
<BONDS>                                        675,978
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,110
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,223,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,731,458
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,062,302
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  827,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,741
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                108,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,615
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             74,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  6,890
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,534
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73


</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 13853 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:11

- cr
- 80169

- KLR

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

OMAR L. GARCIA, Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________ ______ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (April 16, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT , WILSON and EDMONDSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-13853 Date Filed: 04/16/2015 Page: 1 of 22 Thomas Butler, counsel for Omar Garcia in this direct criminal appeal, h as
moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, * counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED , and Garcia’ s conviction s and sentence s are
AFFIRMED

.

* Given the state of the record, we cannot decide issues of ineffective assistance of counsel or of prosecutorial misconduct in this appeal.

Case: 14-13853 Date Filed: 04/16/2015 Page: 2 of 2