alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

ELIZABETH A_ BROVA4 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY S '\/( 

DEPUTY CLERK 

PAUL MENDEZ MILLER, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

MELINDA SUE MILLER, N/KJA 

MELINDA LESINSKY, 

Res • ondent. 

No. 84489 

FILE 

SEP 2 2 2022 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a 

motion to modify child support and awarding attorney fees and costs. 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Dawn 

Throne, Judge. 

On April 13, 2022, the clerk of this court issued a notice 

directing appellant, among other things, to file and serve the fast track 

statement by May 23, 2022. When appellant failed to comply, this court 

entered an order on August 8, 2022, directing appellant to file and serve the 

fast track statement by August 22, 2022. This court cautioned that failure 

to timely comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the 

dismissal of this appeal. See NRAP 3E(i). To date, appellant has not filed 

the fast track statement or otherwise communicated with this court. 

Accordingly, it appears that appellant has abandoned this appeal and this 

court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

, J. 

Stiglich Herndon 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A .0gigto 
cc: Hon. Dawn Throne, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Paul Mendez Miller 

McFarling Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
# C_2020399EN.01002602.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BPCE and Others v ECB

(Case T-146/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 399/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and the 36 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBPC-22 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraph 4 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraphs 3.4 to 3.7 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBPC 22 of the ECB of 14 February 2019; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraph 4 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraphs 3.4 to 3.7 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBPC 22 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 501 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 501

Expressing the sense of the of House of Representatives that the United 
States postal facility network is an asset of significant value and the 
   United States Postal Service should take appropriate measures to 
maintain, modernize and fully utilize the existing post office network 
                          for economic growth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2015

 Mr. Amodei submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the of House of Representatives that the United 
States postal facility network is an asset of significant value and the 
   United States Postal Service should take appropriate measures to 
maintain, modernize and fully utilize the existing post office network 
                          for economic growth.

Whereas the postal facility network is an integral part of universal service and 
        should be modernized to make universal service relevant for the 21st 
        century;
Whereas the closure of post offices in rural communities would create an 
        economic burden for people in the United States that depend on universal 
        service for communication, package services, and non-typical postal 
        services;
Whereas the closure process of post offices does not adequately take into 
        account community input;
Whereas post office boxes represent the most economic and secure choice of mail 
        delivery;
Whereas post offices are recognized as secure and trustworthy, and could 
        function as the location for other government services, community 
        events, and emergency services; and
Whereas post offices have become a part of the identity of rural communities, 
        and provide a significant social value: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures 
to modernize and maintain a post office network.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 581 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 581

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 7, 2016.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1927) to amend title 28, United States Code, to improve fairness in 
class action litigation. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 114-38. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of 
a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 
may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2.  Further proceedings on any question on a motion relating to the 
disposition of the veto message and the bill, H.R. 3762, may be postponed 
through the legislative day of January 25, 2016, as though under clause 8 of 
rule XX.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 10.24

            SCHEDULE OF PARTIES RECEIVING INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS


Erline Belton
Gina Boswell
Doug Conant
Philip R. Crimmins Sr.
Nancy Culbertson
D. Patrick Curran
John C. Cywinski
Michael Czinege
Randolph P. Davis
Carol DiRaimo
Tamy T. Duplantis
Beverly O. Elving
David L. Goebel
Kurt Hankins
Eric L. Hansen
Mark S. Hansen
Jack P. Helms
Lloyd L. Hill
Louis A. Kaucic
James W. Kirkpatrick
Steven K. Lumpkin
David R. Parsley
Sam Rothschild
Burton M. Sack
George D. Shadid
Robert T. Steinkamp
Carin L. Stutz
Stanley M. Sword
Rebecca R. Tilden
Michael Volkema
Douglas D. Waltman
Scott White
RONMENTAL PROTECTION 

prutecting the future for generations 

February 11,2010 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator 

OAR- 1, USEPA Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: 

On behalf of Governor Gibbons, as his appointed designee, this letter transmits to you two hard 

copies of Clark County's revisions to their minor source permitting program regulations and five 

compact discs. Additionally, the regulations may be viewed on Clark County's website at 

httv://www.accessclarkcountv.com/depts/daqeaq/les/paes/work index.aspx. The Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) requests approval of the enclosed Clark County 

regulations into the Nevada State Implementation Plan. 

The enclosed package contains four new or revised Clark County Air Quality Regulations: 

Sections 0, 12.0, 12.1 and 12.1 1. The primary focus of these regulations is on permitting 

"a,... 

requirements for minor stationary sources; however, the changes and updates to the definitions in 

section 0, and to the general requirements and transition procedures in section 12.0, apply to 

other types of permitting actions that will be the subject of future rule revisions. The regulations 

were adopted by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners on November 3,2009. 

Evidence of adoption, appropriate public notice and the participation process is included as 

Appendix A. Public comments and Clark County's response are found in Appendix B. 

If you should have any questions about this submittal or require additional clarification, you may 

contact Russell Roberts of the Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental 

Management at (702) 45 5 - 1 6 1 1. 

Administrator 

Enclosures 

cc W/O enclosures: Robin Reedy, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor 

Allen Biaggi, Director, DCNR 

Greg Remer, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, NDEP 

Tina Gingras, Assistant Director, Clark County DAQEM .,-- Russell Roberts, Rules Project, Clark County DAQEM 

Jefferson Wehling, Air Attorneys (ORC-2), EPA Region IX 

Gerardo Rios, Permits Office (AIR-3), Air Division, EPA Region IX 

Certified Mail No. 7008 1 140 0004 4029 4309 

90 1 S. Stewart Street, Suite 400 1 Carson City, Nevada 8970 1 . p: 775.687.4670 . f: 775.687.5856 . www.ndep.nv.gov 

prmred an recycled paper
1

Notes from Cyhalofop Focus Meeting

- July 11, 2014 Jill Bloom

- author

Introductions

Dow provided a little history and addressed each of the questions previously posed by the team in its PowerPoint presentation.

Cyhalofop was registered in Japan and the Philippines before it was registered here. It is effective against grass weeds only, and is most effective before the grass when the wax cuticle is not too far developed.

Cyhalofop is very phytotoxic to peaches and nectarines and Dow has conducted drift testing to determine what size buffer is protective. Product labels specify which adjuvants should be used. Dow conducts training every year with aerial applicators in California to facilitate proper use in peac h

- growing country.

Dow does not intend to register cyhalofop for use on wild rice. EFED will identify labels in which they saw use instructions for wild rice to Jolene so the issue can be resolved.

Dow also provided a list of data submissions for cyhal ofop. Many of the studies were submitted to European authorities two years ago.

Granular product is used to control submerged weeds up to the 3

- leaf stage. It needs water/moisture to be effective. When water is removed from the paddies, weeds tend to b e bigger and harder to control. Liquid formulations of cyhalofop can be used as a “rescue treatment” at this stage. Rescue treatments are made more often in the southern states.

For drill

- seeded (dry

- seeded) rice, a pre

- emergence herbicide may be used a fter planting. Flushing is conducted to keep moisture levels high in the paddy, but there is no “discharge” out of the paddy per

se . As rice grows taller and starts to tiller, the paddy can be flooded, which helps with weed contro l. If weeds are not ver y well submerged, liquid formulations of cyhalofop can be used at that point. Weed leaves need to intercept the herbicide for it to be effective, and growers may draw down the water level to facilitate.

Rice is grown in fields surrounded by levees and wi th a relatively impermeable barrier under the plants. This land is not good for cultivation of other crops because of the heaviness of the soil.

Clincher GR labels appear to discuss the use of Clincher DR. DR is not a registered product and should be re moved. EFED will identify labels referencing its use for Jolene so the issue can be resolved.

Clincher can be used for spot treatments in rationed rice. Ratooning is relatively rare but can be used in Lousiana.

There is a 60d PHI for cyhalofop. About 20% of the rice crop is treated with cyhalofop. Buffers on multi

- ai labels are driven by cyhalofop. Dow does not sell Rebel X in CA. 24(c) uses should be2

assessed because Dow believes the registrations will be renewed. Some of the rates are a little hi gher and will have to be assessed.

Follow

- up items: Labels to Jolene for clarification Dow will advise on “confidentiality” of powerpoint with regard to docketing.
Exhibit 32.1

                  STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ian M. Herman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Global Aircraft
Solutions, Inc. formerly Renegade Venture (Nev.) Corporation (the "company"),
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2004 (the "Report"), which this statement accompanies, 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 present, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: November 30, 2005                        /s/  Ian M. Herman
                                                --------------------------------
                                                     Ian M. Herman
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2018436EN.01002201.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2018 — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

(Case C-552/18)

(2018/C 436/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno

Respondent: Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

Question referred

Does EU law, more specifically Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) on public procurement, in conjunction with recital 101 of the directive and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue, which categorises ‘grave professional misconduct’ as a mandatory ground of exclusion of an economic operator and provides that, where the professional misconduct has led to the early termination of a public contract, the operator may be excluded only if the termination is not contested or is confirmed at the conclusion of judicial proceedings?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---
Exhibit



Exhibit 10 (l)(l)



Second Amendment to the Restricted Stock Plan for Outside Directors




The Amended and Restated Restricted Stock Plan for Outside Directors of RGC Resources, Inc. (the "Plan"), is amended effective October 1, 2016, to change the first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan so that it reads as follows:


Unless a Participant owns at least 10,000 shares of Company Stock, on the first day of each month during each Plan Year, forty percent (40%) of a Participant’s Compensation for the month shall be paid in shares of Restricted Stock of the Company.


This Amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors on July 25, 2016.




/s/ Paul W. Nester_____________
Paul W. Nester
Secretary
#### Victor Garcia GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

Nos. 15-2571; 16-1964

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Entered: September 25, 2017

Before HOWARD, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA, SELYA, STAHL, LYNCH, THOMPSON, KAYATTA, and BARRON, Circuit Judges.

STAHL, Circuit Judge,

Dissents from the denial of panel rehearing.

ORDER OF COURT

The petition for rehearing having been denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, and the petition for rehearing en banc having been submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges not having voted that the case be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc be denied.

TORRUELLA,

Circuit Judge, Dissenting from the denial of en banc rehearing.

I agree with Judge Stahl that Garcia was not afforded due process when he was first removed in 2004. The majority’s use of that prior, flawed removal to categorically exclude Garcia from eligibility for asylum therefore conflicts with the United States’ treaty obligations. I am not sure if the interpretation of the interplay between 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) is erroneous in light of the Charming Betsy doctrine even without considering Garcia’s unique circumstances, but it is on these facts.

*66As Judge Stahl and the amici have explained, applying a categorical bar to asylum eligibility may violate several Articles of the Refugee Convention. To avoid repeating all of them, I will focus on Article 28, which requires the United States to issue “travel documents” to refugees “unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.” 19 U.S.T. at 6274. Garcia is a refugee, and he will not be issued travel documents if he is not granted asylum. The majority asserts that the government has a “compelling reason” to withhold asylum status, namely “deterring repeated unlawful entry into this country.” That seems like a very low bar for finding a “compelling reason,” but it is particularly inapplicable here. Simply put, it does not appear that his first (and only previous) entry into the United States would have been judged unlawful if he had been afforded due process in his first removal proceedings; he would have been granted asylum. Not only is Garcia losing rights for a second time because the BIA violated his constitutional rights, but even the thin reed on which the majority bases its “compelling reason” argument is inap-posite on these facts.
### Test ID: 4-24-13 M-5 Run #3 **Value**

275.00 0.0000 200.00 

## Coke Plant

4A W eight of Acetone Blank (g) Volume of Acetone Used in Blank (ml)



## 4/24/2013

**Particulate A nalysis Data** 

Volume of Acetone Used 2A (ml)Test ID: 4-24-13 M-5 Run #3



### Value 1.123 0.84 20.9 0
28.836 28.73296188 0.00950887 540.6 555.9 29.75 60 1.69 1.067 29.75 240 1.34 151.161 32 29.71 0.181 0.00017868354



### Value 157.1532644 65.07755 1.3 0.06119 30.7 1.447505 0.009509 0.068134 100.4644 I = % Isokinetic variation 

### Air Test Calculations

 Hav g= average orifice meter differential Vm = Total sample volume from dry gas meter (dcf) Vlc Volume collected Ps = Absolute stack gas pressure (in Hg)

Vwc (std) = conv erted water v olume Total silica gel catch (ml) Vwsg (std) = conv erted silica gel water v olume Bws = fraction of gas that is moisture Vwc(std) Nozzle diameter (in) Area of Nozzle (ft^2)

Vm (std) = Volume of sample measured by DGM (dscf) Vs = Average stack gas v elocity Total impinger catch (ml)  H@ = Orifice meter calibration factor, (in. water) Y = Dry gas meter calibration factor Pbar = Barometric pressure, (in. Hg) Total sampling time required for test (min) Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter temp (R). Ts = Stack gas absolute av erage temperature (R) Pm = Pressure at orifice meter (in. Hg) Ta = Sampling site ambient temperature, (°F) Md = Stack gas dry molecular weight, (lb/lb-mole) Ms = Stack gas (wet) molecular weight (lb/lb-mole) Bws = Stack gas moisture content % O 2 in Gas Stream %CO 2 in Gas Stream 

# Coke Plant

**4/24/2013**

**Method 5 Parameter**
 p = Stack gas v elocity pressure (av g. sqrt  p - in. water) Cp = Pitot tube calibration coefficient

## Value 12.9 0.01290 157.15326 65.077547 555.9 29.75 9.62 0.0095089 2108249.3 24.42 Green Anode Processed Tons/Hr

**Value** 0.381 9.148 0.0156 Emission Rate of Particulate lb Particulate/hr Emission Rate of particulate lb particulate/d Pounds of Particulate per Ton green anode processed Area of the Coke Scrubber (ft2) Bws Moisture in Stack Emissions Qstd Flow of Roof Vent Emissions (dscf/hr) 

## Combined Method 5 Parameter and Analy **tical** 

# Coke Plant Emission Calculations

**4/24/2013**

**Air Test Final Results** Total mg of Particulate Total g of Particulate Vm(std) Volume of Air Sampled by DGM (dscf) Vs Average stack gas velocity Ts Stack Gas R o 

### Pbar Barometric Pressure During Test (in Hg)