alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop Street DENVER, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08



# Nu\' 0 1 

# 2011. Ref: 80C

Honorable John Hoeven United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-3405
Dear SenatorHoeven: Thank you for your letter ofOctober 14, 2011, providing comments onEPA's proposed action regarding North Dakota's Implementation Plans to address regional haze and the interstate transport ofair pollutants that can interfere with programs to protect visibility in other states. Your comments and all others we receive during the public comment period will be reviewed carefully and considered fully as we work toward our decision. We appreciate your interest in this proposal. Ifyou have questions concerning our public comment process, please contact me, or your staffmay wish to contact Sandy Fells, our Regional Congressional Liaison, at 303-312-6604 or fells.sandy@epa.gov. Sincerely,

# \LL**}\.J\v~.· N~v**  Ja es B.

. Re ional Administrator



# *

Printed on Recycled Paper
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1501 

To allow certain off-duty law enforcement officers and retired law enforcement 

officers to carry a concealed firearm to protect children in a school zone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2019 

Mrs. HARTZLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To allow certain off-duty law enforcement officers and retired 

law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm 

to protect children in a school zone. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Police Officers Pro5 tecting Children Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1501 IH

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 

2 AND RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 

3 ALLOWED TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIRE4 ARM, AND DISCHARGE A FIREARM, IN A 

5 SCHOOL ZONE. 

6 Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (2)(B)— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause 

10 (vi); and 

11 (B) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause 

12 (ix) and inserting after clause (vi) the following: 

13 ‘‘(vii) by an off-duty law enforcement offi14 cer who is a qualified law enforcement officer 

15 (as defined in section 926B) and is authorized 

16 under such section to carry a concealed firearm, 

17 if the firearm is concealed; 

18 ‘‘(viii) by a qualified retired law enforce19 ment officer (as defined in section 926C) who 

20 is authorized under such section to carry a con21 cealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed; or’’; 

22 and 

23 (2) in paragraph (3)(B)— 

24 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause 

25 (iii); 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1501 IH

1 (B) by striking the period at the end of 

2 clause (iv) and inserting a semicolon; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(v) by an off-duty law enforcement officer 

5 who is a qualified law enforcement officer (as 

6 defined in section 926B) and is authorized 

7 under such section to carry a concealed firearm; 

8 or 

9 ‘‘(vi) by a qualified retired law enforcement 

10 officer (as defined in section 926C) who is au11 thorized under such section to carry a concealed 

12 firearm.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Team Nominee Template
#### Emmet Thomas, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed June *4,*1915.

1. Tlie failure of the court to charge upon circumstantial evidence is not error, especially when the State relies upon direct evidence.

2. Premeditation sufficient appears in the evidence.

3. Errors, not assigned, may not be complained of.

Writ of error to Circuit Court for Escambia County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.

Judgment Affirmed.

*W. L. Zachary*and *E. T. Davis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. F. West,*Attorney General, and *G. O. Andrews,*Assistant, for tbe State.

Cockrell, J.

Emmet Thomas was convicted of the murder of Ruby Barnes, *alias*Ruby Hogan, and to the death sentence pronounced against him for this murder, he prosecutes this writ of error.

The first assignment of error is that tbe court failed to charge upon circumstantial evidence. The court was not requested to so charge, and the case does not depend upon circumstantial evidence. Ruby’s throat and other parts of her body were cut with a razor, and her mother testified to seeing Thomas when he made the last cut, just before he jumped out of the window and escaped. Other *693witnesses testified to seeing Thomas and Ruby together just a few minutes before the homicide.

The only other assignment argued is based upon the sufficiency of the evidence as to premeditation. There was evidence of threats to kill the girl made a month or more prior to the actual killing — the two had lived together as man and wife, though not married, and she had broken off this relationship; he had followed her to the home of her parents, they quarreled about resuming the relationship and she refused. At the mother’s insistence she goes into the house to. make him a cup of coffee. When they get into the room to themselves he begins slashing her with a razor, a favored weapon of the negro race, finally breaking it off in her neck. We think premeditation sufficiently appears.

It is argued in the brief that the court erroneously permitted deputy sheriffs to testify as to alleged con fessions. No assignment of error presents this ruling for our consideration.

We are clear that the State’s case was fully made out, and that error has not been shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

Tavlor, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 15. Item 6.5.2. – Article 9.7.3. of Chapter 9.7. ‘Infection with Macrobrachium rosenbergii nodavirus’

CHAPTER 9.7.

INFECTION WITH MACROBRACHIUM ROSENBERGII**NODAVIRUS (WHITE TAIL DISEASE)

[...]

Article 9.7.3.

Measures for the importation or transit of aquatic animal products for any purpose regardless of the infection with MrNV status of the exporting country, zone or compartment

The *aquatic animal products*listed below have been assessed as meeting the criteria for safety of *aquatic animal products*in accordance with Article 5.4.1. When authorising the importation or transit of these *aquatic animal products*, *Competent Authorities*should not require any *sanitary measures*related to MrNV, regardless of the infection with MrNV status of the *exporting country*, *zone*or *compartment*:

1)	*aquatic animal products*that have been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least ~~60~~50°C for at least ~~6050~~five minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates MrNV;

2)	crustacean *meal*that has been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least ~~60~~50°C for at least ~~6050~~five minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates MrNV;

3)	crustacean oil;

4)	chemically extracted chitin.

[...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 201 9

No. 04

- 19

- 00318

- CV

Leticia R. BENAVIDES, Appellant s

v.

Cristina B. ALEXANDER as permanent guardian of the person of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr., et al., Appellee s

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVQ

- 00016 1

- D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due on June 13, 2019 . On June 14, 2019

, this court notified the court reporter by letter that the reporter’s record was late and must be filed by no later than July 15, 2019. On July 17, 2019, the court reporter filed a notification of late record requesting an additional sixty (60) days to file the report er’s record. The request is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the court reporter file the reporter’s record by no later than September 1 6 , 2019.

Given that the court reporter has been given extension s of time to file the reporter’s

record in this cas e totaling ninety (90) days, the court reporter is advised that no further requests for extension of time to file the reporter’s record will be granted. If the reporter’s record is not filed by September 1 6 , 2019, the court reporter is further advised that an order may issue directing her to appear before this court in person and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record.

The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on the court reporter by c ertified mail, return receipt requested, or give other personal notice of this order with proof of delivery. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 35.3(c), the clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge of the 49 th Judicial District Court._________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------



The Board of Directors
MAF Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.'s
33-79110, 333-06593, 333-65655, 333-66693, 333-72865, 333-72863) on Form S-8 of
MAF Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1999, relating to the
consolidated statements of financial condition of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1998, the six months
ended December 31, 1996 and the year ended June 30, 1996, which report appears
in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of MAF Bancorp, Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 23, 1999
**This item contains materials that cannot**  **be**

**uploaded to the federal docket. A DVD**  **containing files submitted to EPA**  **by Hogback Exploration with**  **miscellaneous file extensions is available by**  **contacting docket**  **staff via email at Docket_ORD@epamail.epa.gov**
#### GECC Financial Corp. v. Worobe

17882

5/20/97

Vacated and Remanded
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PRISCILLA DUET AND CURTIS

DUET, HUSBAND AND WIFE

NO. 2022 CW 1198

VERSUS

CALEB LAND CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2023

In Re: 

BEFORE: 

Caleb Land Corporation, applying for

writs, 17th Judicial District Court, 

Lafourche, No. 143161. 

McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREEjNE, JJ. 

supervisory

Parish of

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED INI PART. The portion of the

district court's October 5, 2022 judgmeht that denied Caleb Land

Corporation's motion to file a reconventional demand against

plaintiffs, Priscilla Duet and Curtis Duet, in its proposed

third supplemental and amended pleading is reversed in part. 

Portions of the proposed pleading with respect to the

reconventional demand may constitute compulsory reconventional

demands, arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is

the subject matter of the principal action. See La. Code Civ. P. 

art. 1061 (B). Therefore, to the extent the pleading asserted

compulsory reconventional demands, the district court abused its

discretion in denying the motion which sought leave to file the

reconventional demand, and the motion is granted in part to

allow the filing of the reconventional demand in the third

supplemental and amended pleading to the extent it asserts a

compulsory reconventional demand. The writ is denied in all

other respects. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

O\.c.D

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT

PMc

GH

HG
#### Ambalal Chandubhai PATEL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73559.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

Bob S. Platt, Esq., Law Office of Bob Platt, Granada Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Blair T. O’Connor, Esq., Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ambalal Chandubhai Patel petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Because the transitional rules apply, *see Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion. *Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, *2111209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Patel’s motion to reopen because the record shows that his former counsel of record received proper notice of Patel’s deportation hearing held on August 24, 1995. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1008.26 (formerly 8 C.F.R. § 3.26); *Garcia,*222 F.3d at 1209 (holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner).

The remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Cut Flower Name Validation List

Last Modified: 

Print

PPQ has generated the following list of cut flowers genus, species, and subspecies

(PG05) along with the corresponding common name (PG17). This list does not

represent commodities that may or may not be admissible, but provides the

acceptable spellings for the categories listed and provides the corresponding

Integrated Taxonomic Information Systems (IT IS) Taxonomic Serial Number (TSN)

and APHIS id number (APID).

This list is not all encompassing; if the genus, species, or subspecies does not

appear on this list, use the format that appears on the associated phytosanitary

certificate, and commercial invoice. PPQ will update the list as necessary and

provide the date of the most recent update. All shipments are subject to review and

inspection.

*Note that in the PG05 record identifier APHIS only collects one element beyond

species known as “Scientific Sub Species Name.” This space can be used to report a

subspecies or variety as necessary when reported on a permit or phytosanitary

certificate.

Loading...

Cut Flower Name Validation List
Exhibit 31.2
 RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2009 of Education Management Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize, and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Edward H. WestEdward H. WestPresident and Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Ricks

19107

6/13/97

Vacated and Remanded
# C_2019093EN.01001902.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/19

---

Appeal brought on 7 May 2018 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2018 in Case T-445/16, Schniga GmbH v Gemeinschaftliches Sortenamt (CPVO)

(Case C-308/18 P)

(2019/C 93/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze und T. Wittmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Gemeinschaftliches Sortenamt (CPVO)

By decision of 8 November 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as unfounded and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.

---
Williams , Rene e (OST ) ^odi^c j bO TQST - f99^ ' ^7* 7 Subject : FW : Essentia l Ai rsevice (Chisana.AK ) From : Jacque

s Etcheverr

y[mailto.•moose_killer_ak@hotmail.com ] Sent : Wednesday , Apri l 07 , 201 0 12:43 P M To : Little , Cynthi a M (DOT ) Subject : Essentia l Ai rsevic e (Chisana,AK

) Hello ; ^:: i ( • • ' 5 Mynam e i s Jacque s Etcheverry , I a m a 27y rol d bor n & raise d alaskan . As propert yowner's - I alon g wit h m ywife , 5 brothers(al l owner s to) , thei rwive s & kid s ar e askin g yo u t o kee p th e essentia l ai r servic e going . M yGrandparent s hav e bee n livin g ther e fo r20yr s & remova l o fthi s servic e woul d b e a hug e blo wfo rthe m & fo rus . I hav e bee n gatherin g material s t o buil d a hom e ther e & pla n t o retir e there . I hop e yo u wil l no tabando n u s b yremovin g th e essentia l air . than k yo u fo ryou rtim e . Jacque s Etcheverr y

Hotmai l ha s tool s fo rth e Ne wBusy . Search , cha t an d e-mai l fro m you rInbox . Lear n more .
Exhibit 10.13


 


SECOND AMENDMENT
TO Promissory note


 


THIS
SECOND Amendment (THE “SECOND AMENDMENT”) DATED July 27, 2018,
shall amend the Promissory note (THE “NOTE”) dated AS OF JUNE 1, 2016
AND AMENDED ON JULY 20, 2017 (THE “FIRST AMENDMENT”) AMONG NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. (THE “MAKER”)
AND Hsu Gamma Investments, l.p. (THE “PAYEE”) AS NOTED BELOW. THE NOTE,
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS THE AMENDED NOTE.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Payee (collectively, the “Parties”) are parties to the Note which became effective on June 1, 2016; and


 


WHEREAS, on July
20, 2017, the Parties amended the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2017 until July 31, 2018; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
desire to amend the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2018 until July 31, 2020.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in the Note and this Second Amendment and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


AMENDMENT


 


1. Section
1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


The principal amount of the loan evidenced
hereby, together with any accrued and unpaid interest, and any and all unpaid costs, fees and expenses accrued, shall be due and
payable on July 31, 2020 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


2. Governing Law.
This Second Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to its conflict of laws rules or principles.


 


3. Amendments. Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


4. Entire Agreement.
This Second Amendment and the Note constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersede all prior understandings and writings between the Parties relating thereto.


 


5. Interpretation.
Any capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning provided in the Note.


 



    	 



    	 



     


6. Counterparts.
This Second Amendment may be executed manually, electronically in Adobe® PDF file format, or by facsimile by the Parties, in
any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered one and the same amendment and shall become effective when a counterpart
hereof shall have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Party.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Borrower has duly executed this Second Amendment to the Note and Security Note as of the 27th day of July, 2018.


 


	 	 	 	
        NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC.

        

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
        By:

        
	/s/ James J. Martin
	 	 	 	
        Name:

        
	James J. Martin
	 	 	 	Title:	
        Chief Financial Officer

        

	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	HSU GAMMA INVESTMENTS, L.P.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Jane H. Hsiao, Ph.D.	 	 	 
	Name:	Jane H. Hsiao, Ph.D.	 	 	 
	Title:	General Partner
#### Freitas v. State.

18144

1/23/97

Affirmed